The Bush administration's poor diplomacy

Great Debates
1

I have just read an article that well sums up my misgivings about Bush’s attempts at diplomacy: http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?vts=031720030745.

I don’t disagree with everything Bush & co. have done, but I pretty universally disagree with how he does it. When Chile or France makes a compromise proposal, why don’t we hear:

"We appreciate (country’s) desire for compromise on this serious issue, but we don’t feel that their proposal solves the issues at hand. For these reasons (insert summary of reasons), we cannot accept. If (country) were to adequately address our concerns, we would be willing to entertain further proposals. In fact, here are some of the sort of compromises toward which we’d be more receptive. (insert actual attempts at compromise) "

Instead, we get (brusquely): “That proposal’s a non-starter” – basically the diplomatic equivalent of “screw you.”

For debate then:

  • Is the linked article fair and accurate in its criticisms?
  • Is there some subtle reason that Bush’s bludgeoning (imho) style diplomacy, and resulting erosion of world opinion toward the U.S., are actually in our country’s best interests?

thanks,

-P

2

**Is the linked article fair and accurate in its criticisms?

No.
Is there some subtle reason that Bush’s bludgeoning (imho) style diplomacy, and resulting erosion of world opinion toward the U.S., are actually in our country’s best interests?**

Diplomacy is a bull-shitting tip that belongs back in the 19th Century. Phony talk and double speak won’t get us through the 21st Century. The straight clear talk of George Double-U Bush is a refreshing new begining for a happy chance at a better ending.

3

I think that was an absolutely perfect, fair, calm and balanced assessment of exactly what the Bush administration is doing wrong, and how utterly awful it is. It identifies clearly exactly why I am deeply ashamed and angry. As an American that has always been proud of my country, I have no choice.

Thank you for pointing it out.

4

When I saw the thread title I immediately thought of linking Fareed Zakaria’s Newsweek essay myself before seeing it in the OP. It’s important to note that Zakaria is a moderate who supports the Iraq war. He is also one of the most lucid and authoritative exponents of the establishment foreign policy view (he was an editor at Foreign Affairs the ultimate establishment journal). His article is devastating about how incompetent the Bush administration has been in selling its policy regardless of whether you agree with the substance of that policy.

One of the most striking paragraphs:
“But should the guiding philosophy of the world’s leading democracy really be the tough talk of a Chicago mobster? In terms of effectiveness, this strategy has been a disaster. It has alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it. “Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,” says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.” Last fall, a senior ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech supporting America’s position on Iraq, added an innocuous phrase that could have been seen as deviating from that support. The Bush administration called up his foreign minister and demanded that he be formally reprimanded within an hour. The ambassador now seethes when he talks about U.S. arrogance. Does this really help America’s cause in the world? There are dozens of stories like this from every part of the world.”

Unfortunately this kind of bullying has alienated one important ally after another: Germany, South Korea, Turkey, Mexico. Even Canada refuse to support the US.

The US is now more isolated and distrusted than perhaps it has ever been, at a time when it is more dependent than ever before on other countries to help tackle problems like terrorism and nuclear proliferation. What a mess.

5

Well in that case, I feel compelled to point out that your post is almost ceretain to be the most non-reasoned, unsupported drivel to appear in this thread, and that it is an embarrasment to the SDMB, unworthy of Great Debates, and makes the baby Cecil cry. I hope this straight clear talk is a refreshing new beginning for a happy chance at something or other for you.

(Hey, you’re right. The world is a better place without diplomacy!)

6

See, that’s the trouble with Texans. No sense of delicacy and nuance.

“I’m straightforward and direct, you are brusque and rude, he is a belligerant bully.”

7

Well said, Milum.

The article can hardly be fair when it was written from an obviously biased perspective – America is the bully, Bush is the rude cowboy, international consensus is the Holy Grail. Oddly, the article answers all its own questions, and that of the OP, by pointing out the simple fact that there is exactly one “superpower” on Earth – the United States. In one way or another, that fact explains volumes. Natural jealousy on the part of other nations and the lack of another “enemy” superpower to unite against leave us in a position that is as good as it is bad.

All the history you – or the author of the article – can muster can’t alter the state of the world today, and that has little to do with the state of the world in Wilson’s time, or FDR’s, or even Kennedy’s. The truly remarkable paradox I see now is the fact that America’s critics are so shocked that we’re not playing by their nice rules when the same critics don’t seem to expect our enemies to play by any rules at all.

I marvel at the inability of so many people in this country to see the difference between the fact that the U.S. possesses weapons of mass destruction and the fact that a dictatorial, genocidal maniac named Saddam Hussein possesses same.

Who has led the opposition to U.S. and UN action against Iraq? France, Russia and China. Who have been the primary beneficiaries of illegal trade with Iraq over the last twelve years? Um, that’d be France, Russia and China. What a coincidence.

A week or so ago, some of our troops were conducting live-fire training exercises in an area along the Iraq/Kuwait border. A group of Iraqi soldiers suddenly appeared atop a nearby sand dune, hands held high, offering surrender. Our guys had to turn them down, explaining that they’d just have to wait until hostilities begin before they can do that. U.S. military computer hackers have blanketed Iraqi military email boxes with spam, advising Iraqi commanders to surrender quickly to avoid bloody defeat; the hackers have received a number of replies asking for specific direction on how to surrender without being shot to pieces.

I look for a war as short as it is just.

Stoid, look at the bright side! Sunny Iraq welcomes shameful Americans! ('Course, you have to stand right where they tell you…)

minty green, your “talk” would come closer to being “straight” and “clear” if you’d learn to spell, that much is “ceretain.”

8

Nations with moral clarity have no need for diplomacy or spelling.

9

Tbone:

Well put, albeit unintentional. International consensus does not really have any theological connotations. But for our world, and our species, childhood is over, we no longer can afford schoolyard squabbles and blustering. We are armed far beyond our wisdom. We will learn to cooperate, or we will perish.

Period.

10

“Oddly, the article answers all its own questions, and that of the OP, by pointing out the simple fact that there is exactly one “superpower” on Earth – the United States.”
America was the only superpower during Clinton’s presidency as well but he still managed to build a European coalition including France and Germany in the face of considerable skepticism at first.
This is a nice article which contrasts the Clinton success with the Bush fiasco.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080262/
“Who has led the opposition to U.S. and UN action against Iraq? France, Russia and China. Who have been the primary beneficiaries of illegal trade with Iraq over the last twelve years? Um, that’d be France, Russia and China.”
Source? My understanding is that most of the illegal trade is between Iraq and bordering countries which makes a lot of sense since it’s easier to smuggle goods nextdoor than halfway across the world.

Besides this doesn’t explain why the US has failed to win support from Germany, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, Chile etc.

11

Fareed Zakaria is a favorite ‘liberal’ of mine. I think he is extremely knowledgeable, fair in his opinions, and it’s refreshing how he approaches an issue from a liberal viewpoint without resorting to knee-jerk partisanship.

His essay is well taken by me, and he makes some valid points that I’ve had misgivings about myself.

That said, there is an assumption in the article that things would have turned out much better if the Bush administration had just been more skillful in its diplomacy. I think that’s still an open question, because it seems to me that France would have opposed any resolution no matter how skillfully it was presented.

12

Oh, those evil Frogs! Every body else is in total agreement, rushing to put thier children and their treasure at the disposal of Our Leader! Well, except for China. And Russia. And Chile. And Mexico…

13

If the shoe fits…**

Uh-huh. I’m still trying to see the “good” part of giving nations with nuclear weapons an inferiority complex. Being the only superpower also makes us the obvious target for every little terrorist group and tinpot dictatorship with something to prove. This is exactly why we need diplomacy now more than ever, and why acting like we can kick everyone’s butt will ultimately backfire on us.**

They’re not superpowers; we are. Of course different rules apply.

**

Personally, I’m still waiting for proof on the latter assertion. But yes, there is a difference, and I don’t agree with those who seriously think there isn’t.**

Who has been the primary advocate for war? The Bush administration. Who stands to benefit most from the war on Iraq? Please answer in three words or less…**

A nifty anecdote. Let’s hope the cities are that easy to take and keep.**

They probably just wanted a Larger Penis in 90 Days… :wink:

**

Me too.

Let’s be frank: Saddam Hussein is a bad person, and ousting him will probably do the Iraqi in the street a big favor. Doing it this way, however, will probably not do the US any favors. The worst thing the US could do is to act as if it doesn’t need the rest of the world, because what will eventually happen is that the rest of the world will start working out how it can do without the US. If we don’t negotiate from strength, someday we may have to negotiate from weakness.

14

“I think that’s still an open question, because it seems to me that France would have opposed any resolution no matter how skillfully it was presented.”
And what about Germany, Russia, Chile, Mexico, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Canada, Turkey ,South Africa etc?

Oh and Zakaria isn’t a “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination. He is as centrist as they come unless you are looking at politics from a radically right-wing perspective.

15

Yes, that’s true. I shouldn’t have called him a ‘liberal’. He’s a centrist, for sure. He’s center-left on domestic issues, and center-right on foreign policy, if I had to pigeonhole him.

What I should have said is that he’s providing a reasonable dissenting viewpoint when it comes to the Bush administration’s approach to diplomacy, although he does support the war, and in fact he was one of the earliest and most vocal supporters of the Bush administration’s policy. That’s one more reason why his article deserves careful consideration - he is criticising the Bush administration despite his total agreement with the war itself, and so you can’t just write off his criticism as sour grapes or general opposition to the president.

While I would agree that the Bush administration never had a chance of getting 100% worldwide support of this war, it’s also true that if France hadn’t been actively opposing the U.S. and campaigning these countries to oppose the U.S., Bush would no doubt have gotten his Security Council majority.

France was the real unexpected wildcard in this whole thing, and it’s the reason the Bush administration’s diplomacy went off the rails. Bush knew that China and Russia would be very hesitant, but he probably assumed that in the end France would come around. And France apparently gave assurances to the U.S. that it WOULDN’T oppose a second resolution, which is the only reason the U.S. agreed to go down the U.N. road in the first place. France was duplicitous, and reneged on its agreement. That surprised the administration.

Of course, the administration deserves some blame for this as well. Rumsfeld needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut. That ‘new Europe/Old Europe’ thing may have been true, and satisfying to hear, but it played havoc on the French ‘street’, and really hardened France’s position.

But at the end of the day, in hindsight it looks like the real mistake Bush made was to go for a second resolution in the first place. The blame for that lies with Colin Powell, who strongly advocated the U.N. route. Dick Cheney warned Bush about ‘the inspection trap’, and thought the administration was being set up. He was right.

16

By definition, we cannot do wrong on the diplomacy front. If we have a falling out with someone, if they don’t like us, then this simply proves that they are bad people, not worth negotiating with.

I’ve read a lot of research on negotiation, especially on optimal strategies, and I think the thing most people miss is that in negotiation, we determine not just who gets what, but how big the “pie” is: most hard bargain negotiators end up winning the larger part of a much much smaller pie than there otherwise would have been to divvy up: as well as ruining prospects for the future. It’s hard to celebrate someone winning the larger piece of a much much smaller pie, when even a smaller piece of a larger pie would have been bigger in absolute terms.

17

I’ve been thinking for the past week how this would have played out with Clinton as president in a pro-war stance. Now is not the time for an Ugly American President. It’s a real shame because with Clinton we probably could have had all the support we needed and still managed to make French leadership look like the slime that they are.

18

—he is criticising the Bush administration despite his total agreement with the war itself, and so you can’t just write off his criticism as sour grapes or general opposition to the president.—

But, of course, such a “writing off” would be an irrational ad hominem practice, precisely the sort of ignorance we seek to fight here at straight dope, right? Right?

19

Just so that comment about the French doesn’t come off as “Them damn anti-american axis of weasles,” let me say I don’t have a problem with any of the other countries that don’t support us.

20

My favorite bit was where, two weeks ago, Bush promised the nation that there WOULD be a second UN vote. Something about “It’s time for the world to show where they stand.” Talk about your bald-faced lies.