How effective is the US State Department?

Great Debates
1

This topic was suggested by Newt Gingrich’s recent attack on the State Department. He charged that the department’s Middle East specialists were “appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes.” He pointed to their lack success, saying “The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success.” Gingrich blamed an “ineffective and incoherent” State Department for failing to win over Turkey’s support for the war against Iraq, the success of the French counter-offensive within the UN and losing public support for the US worldwide.

I didn’t find Gingrich wholly convincing. OTOH I have no basis for judging that the State Department is doing a good job, either.

So, how good a job is our State Department doing? How should we measure their effectiveness?

2

Ramesh Ponnuru is critical of the Near East bureau of the State Department.

3

I think it is a mistake to look at it that way. The State Department does what it is told to do, just like the Pentagon does the same. The president has chosen a policy of not going along with the rest of the world and of invading Iraq. The State Department carried out the policies it was assigned and the failure is not to blame on Colin Powel (who I think has much more view than his boss) but on the president who assigned him the task. I have a much higher opinion of the State Department than I have of the President.

4

Alternatively, State (as has been amply demonstrated by Powell’s many best-he-can-do-with-no-support perfomances) has simply been hamstrung by the fact that they have been routinely and resolutely ignored by the administration.

State’s “hostility to the INC,” in the second post, is an excellent example. State did not oppose the INC on principle, but they very clearly fought the notion that it was a good idea to install a rather notorious convicted criminal, Chalabi, who has not actually lived in (or even, to my knowledge, visited), Iraq in 45 years as the head of state in Iraq at the behest of some Republican ideologues in Congress.

The State Department may, indeed, be incompetent or ineffective. However, as noted in the Bush bungled the diplomacy…how did he do that, exactly? thread, their ability to work with other nations has been hamstrung by specific actions and declarations of the President from the first months of this administration.

Here is the text of Gingrich’s speech.

5

Well, december, I would expect you to claim that Powell and others at the Department of State display anti-Americanism, since they don’t seem to share the neocon groupthink spouted by the Cheneyites.

6

Thanks for the link, tomndebb. I now see that Gingrich’s charges against the State Dept. were numerous and specific.

I’m inclined to give State very good marks for getting Res. 1441 passed unanimously. I tend not to blame them for failing to get a follow-up resolution at the UN, as it was probably impossible from the get-go.

OTOH they do seem to have missed the boat in Turkey. Not only did they fail to get cooperation, they also mis-judged the situation so that some of our troops and supplies were sent to Turkey, where they couldn’t be used.

Regarding Chalabi, a subtle question is whether State merely fought his being installed by the US or fought to reduce his chances of being selected by the Iraqi people. The former is OK, the latter is not. However, it’s hard to tell which is the case.

I’m on the fence regarding their efforts to bring the UN and international community into post-war efforts. That seems natural for a Dept. of State. OTOH I believe things will go far better in Iraq without the incompetent or self-interested involvement of France, Germany, Russia, Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, or the rest of the UN.

My interest in the competence of the State Dept. is somewhat independent of who happens to be President. The State Dept. gets a debit for the Oslo Accords, since they wound up leading to jihad, rather than peace.

AZCowboy, I’m more interested in the permanent employees of the State Dept. than their current leader. Your sarcastic comment actually is pretty close to what I am worried about. It’s close to Porrunu’s “old saw” that State Department employees tend to regard themselves as the world’s ambassadors to the United States, rather than vice versa. Perhaps State Dept. employees tend to lack confidence in their own country.

7

Did they? You are aware, I hope, that Turkey went through a change in government during this foofaraw? Was the “failure” of State to bring Turkey “in line” due to an actual lack of competence? Or was State actually more effective than they are now given credit, since they got Tukey to change their stance from one of “No way” to one of “we want a bigger bribe, since we see what you’re giving states that will not even be on the front lines.”

They may have failed in Turkey, but without reviewing the actual events and personalities involved–as neither you nor Gingrich have presented, I would withhold a judgement.

I heard in the news, a few minutes ago, that Ari Fleischer seems to be trying to stick Uncle Sam’s foot in his mouth, again. In his press conference, this morning, in which he noted that the U.S. was warning Iran to stay out of the Shiia affairs of Iraq, he explicitly said that the U.S. hopes that Iraq will follow a model such as Turkey. I understand his statement, but I wonder how well it would have helped the occupying forces in Germany, in 1945, if we had announced that we hoped the new German government looked like that of France, or told the Japanese we wanted them to look ilike China?

8

I don’t care much for posters who posts simply with the goal of “turning people around” to his/her side. It’s easy to spot those posters, they usually quote a certain assertion/point a view from somewhere, and then asks: Is it so? - instead of writing a pro/con summary of their own. Isn’t this board about exchanging facts and knowledge? Shouldn’t the OP frame the discussion?

December’s conservative position is easy to spot, and while some might claim that this particular OP isn’t biased, let me just say that the poster didn’t quote any of the answers given by State officials on this issue in his OP, answers which are widely included in every article I came across reading about this issue yesterday and today.

To the OP:
What this issue (Gingrich) is all about is the beginning of a fight over the future course of US foreign policy. When Bush was elected he was not very experienced (contrary to his father), so he put Cheney in charge of much of the transition process. Cheney proposed/selected neo-conservatives from the circles of PNAC and American Enterprise Institute (or aligned to them) to every important position related to national security and foreign policy, except Head of State.

The neo-conservatives wants to control State as well. This is simply a political attack on Powell. The man enjoys higher approval ratings than the president himself (80% ++ last time I heard). The goal is to minimalize Powell’s influence, and hopefully eventually take control of State, maybe after the 2004 election (if Bush wins that is).

The attack itself can be seen as an exploitation between the visibility of the actions of Pentagon (get-things-done attitude - troops, etc) versus the silent diplomacy of foreign affairs. I don’t know whether State does its job well or not, or what it should do, so I can’t answer the OP on that one. But let me mention this: When India and Pakistan recently threatened each other with military action, it was widely reported that the leaders of the two contries didn’t speak with each other. In fact, they said so themselves: “We don’t trust them, and we see no reason to continue any talks”. What was NOT widely reported was that at least one of those two countries (Pakistan) had moved missiles loaded with nuclear warheads out of their stationary position, and deployed them in attack positions along the border.

To sum it up: there were nuclear missiles deployed AND the phone was off the hook

We might ask ourselves: Was it the backchannel, the quiet diplomacy of the UN, along with other nations like the US, which got the parties to back down, or did they simply come to their senses?

That’s all I have to say on this matter. Except that former President Bush supposedly has very high thoughts of Powell, according to some recent interviews.

I’m tired of reading that the US was involved in the Oslo Accords (Deal I). The US had nothing to do with the Oslo Accords. These negotiations were conducted in Oslo, privately in the home of one state official, and noone, not even the Norwegian Parliament, were informed of these talks until after the parties were convinced an agreement could actually be reached. The second, certifying, signing of the agreement, in the presence of Clinton, was done to give the deal international legitimacy, but neither the US, nor anyone else, was involved during the crucial steps prior to when the matter became publically known.

And the claim that the Oslo Accords lead to jihad etc, is simply stupid. One might suggest someone read up on who was in power at what point in time in Israel, about the Oslo Accords II, and the implementation (or the failure of such implementation) of the steps outlined in the agreement.

9

When was the last time two long-time US diplomats resigned from their posts as a result of the current Administration’s stupidity and/or imcompetence? For that matter, when was the last any US diplomat who resigned, did so in such a public manner as to have their resignation letter published in a major newpaper?
John Brady Kiesling’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell (NY Times - free registration)

John H. Brown’s resignation

10

Well, the whole point and purpose of diplomacy is to attempt to arrive at agreements which both sides will honor with a foreign power, which is by definition (pending worldwide application of the Bush Doctrine, of course :eek: ) a nation which does not have the same aims and political basis as the Land of the Free. In the course of human nature and political reality, many such nations will in fact be run by dictators, oligarchies, despots, and other persons of pejorative terminology.

Whether they are or not is not the business of State – their job is to get the best terms they can for America by negotiations and treaties with the government in power in a given country at the present time – a very pragmatic job. It’s probably worth noting that we got into Vietnam in the first place through holding up what amounted to the dictatorship of Ngo Dinh Diem (though it did have the trappings of a democracy, the elections were stage-managed) as a bulwark against the spread of creeping Communism.

There is a point at which diplomacy in dealing with aggressive dictatorships will fail – a point Neville Chamberlain learned too late. But making the decision of what that point is is not the job of a career diplomat – it’s the task of the President, advised by the Secretaries of State and Defense and the N.S.C. Their job is to do the best they can for American interests in dealing with the government that happens to be in power in a given country, regardless of whether or not it can be described as a popularly elected democracy or an absolute dictatorship.

11

I couldn’t tell from Newt’s speech who are all those “dictators and corrupt regimes” we are “appeasing & propping up.”

The al Sabah family in Kuwait? Saudi royal family? Okay, we have to prop up those dictators, they have lots of oil.

How about Pervez Musharraff in Pakistan or Hosni Mubarik in Egypt?

12

I think the current State Department is doing as well at it’s job of advancing American foreign policy as any State Department has. The trouble is that our foreign policy has always been fairly half-assed.

We deal with each country as though they exist in a vacuum we created, without neighbors, diplomatic relations to other nations, or national interests outside of being as appealing to Americans as possible.

It thought Powell might turn out to be a good Secretary of State, but it turns out he’s a better military man: when push came to shove, he stood by his commander in chief against his better judgement. So much for any presidential aspirations he may have had…