Schlagwort-Archive: US Politics

Iraq, US Politics

John Brady Kiesling,

is – or rather, has been – an American career diplomat who has written an open letter to Colin Powell to inform him as well as the rest of the world [ via NYTimes, or Sueddeutsche Zeitung , link in German ] of his resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from his position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. You might have read his open letter somewhere during the last two days. If not, read it, it is quite interesting.

My initial reaction was “wow, where can I sign this” and “My God, courageous guy. He is surely going to be lynched for alleged treason should he ever return to the US”.

His letter of resignation is a reminder that there is a “Bush, the Cowboy”-perception similar to that in many European Capitals even within the US State Department (which, if I am informed correctly, has always been regarded by “real” hawks as a breeding ground for multilateral weasels anyway…), and that Colin Powell has not been able to successfully “contain” George W. Bush –

“Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.”

But then again, I don’t know John Brady Kiesling. So I take his own words as a useful reminder –

“It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.”

So now, after the appropriate motive scepticism disclaimer, I would like to quote some more parts of his letter.

“… until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests.”

“… this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. …”

“The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. …”

“When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? …”

“I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. “

In related news, I find it quite interesting that it appears as if the letter is only reaching those parts of the public which already agree with the points made, if the blogdex-trackback should actually be a useful indicator of public perception. It seems, pro war blogs are not too active linking Mr Kiesling’s criticism of the current administration’s policy. So, again, everybody is talking to his home market and no real interaction and discussion occurs. Too bad. I think, Mr. Kiesling’s remarks deserve to be taken seriously.

Does anybody know if he got some big media attention in the US – apart from the NYTimes printing the letter?

Is he still alive?

Standard
Political Theory, US Politics

Famous Words.

Not that I think the current international crisis is even slightly reminiscent of the danger posed by the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962, the words JFK used in his speech to the American people are worth remembering in these days.

“Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right-not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you and good night.”

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

A New World Symphony

When I woke up today, SWR3 radio was broadcasting a piece about the non-event that Angela Merkel’s visit is for the US media despite the “royal treatment” – she has been given by the US government, according to the NYTimes – thanks to Amiland for pointing to the article.

There’s much truth in what is said about her visit in the article, in my opinion rather accurately summarised by the following quote from Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican –

“Obviously, she’s the leader of the opposition party, but I do think the real objective here is to put back together and repair the damage that’s been done between these two countries, … Don’t allow America to define Germany by what the chancellor said, or don’t allow Germany to define America by using anti-American sentiments for political purposes.”

But what the article does not even allude to is how the price for her “royal treatment” is perceived over here. SWR3 was unusually harsh in its wording. The price for meeting with all those “you’re either for or against us”-officials is to renounce to a public opinion of one’s own – “a kowtow”.

Well, let’s just say that this is one possible interpretation. And should the NY Times article be read by some more journalists over here than usual, she might well get the some more press coverage after her return, for Angie apparently said that Rumsfeld was right to describe Germany and France as ‘old Europe” –

“… the Defense Department official who described her meeting with Mr. Rumsfeld said she had told him that, whatever his motivation, he had hit an accurate chord in his comments about Germany and France as “old Europe.” The official added that she had also commented that there “was a lot of truth in what he had said and that the discussion had served some good.”

– while she felt –

“… she has a little bit of new Europe in her…”

Lovely. I can already see the vultures. Last Friday, a friend described Merkel’s current political behavior with the following remark – “… she’s just not up to the job.”

Looks like she wants to prove him right.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, oddly enough, US Politics

Axis And Alliance… We’re Soooooooo Willing.

Politicians are such a crazy bunch sometimes. If you read Ari Fleischer’s [White House spokesman] statements regarding Germany at the White House Press Briefing [search for Germany] last Friday you could indeed think that Germany is now part of the “Alliance of the Willing”. I guess he just wants to confuse the German media ;-) – remember, two weeks ago we were on par with Lybia and Cuba, remember the Axis of Weasel?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don’t think that’s the case at all. In fact, take a look — Germany is an example. Germany, we already anticipate, will vote no on any resolution at the Security Council. Yet in the end, Germany played a constructive role in NATO to make certain that our ally, Turkey, could be defended. If you recall, Germany supported the position of the military divisions within NATO, the Defense Planning Committee, to protect Turkey, which indeed is receiving the AWAX and the chemical weapon defenses and other supplies that NATO is now on the ground providing to Turkey. That’s an example of a nation that intends to vote no at the Security Council is still a member of the Alliance and is still helpful in certain regards.

I really wonder what made them change the tune… could it be that Blair’s problems within his parliamentary party are the key? I suppose it’s been a long time since British backbenchers had such a power over war and peace. Maybe W started to count the members of the “Alliance of the Willing” and realised that there aren’t too many that a larger part of the American public would be able to locate on a map should Blair indeed be forced to weasel out, in case the French veto a second resolution.

So the enrollment criteria for the Alliance seem to have become a little more inclusive… Hmm, I wonder what the Schroodle thinks about this development.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

The Rationale Behind Open Opposition

Joshua Micah Marshall offers one more reason behind the unusual open and vocal Old European resistance to the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq.

“… The fact that Brent Scowcroft, the president’s father’s foreign policy guru, keeps on having to resort to the opinion pages to warn the president away from some new foreign policy disaster? (These public missives, of course, are widely and I think correctly seen as veiled messages from former President Bush.)”

Now if even Bush senior is going through the media to talk to his son, I think the conclusion becomes unavoidable that talking to W does not really help to influence his policy decisions. So which option remains for those sceptical of his course? They have to take their opinion out to the street… and there we are.

Standard
Iraq, media, US Politics, USA

Unfortunately, We Can’t Tell You…

what the Matrix is. You have to find out for youself. Today, Paul Krugman is handing out green pills by looking at tv screens on both sides of the rift.

I’m not mainly talking about the print media. […] Most people, though, get their news from TV – and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday’s antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.

… On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as “the usual protesters” or “serial protesters.” …

So it’s not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won’t go along are cowards.

Europeans, who don’t see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq – rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda – has become the focus of U.S. policy. That’s why so many of them question American motives, suspecting that it’s all about oil or that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can defeat. They don’t see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.

There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets – operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration’s foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic – have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.

So which is it? I’ve reported, you decide.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

News From Brussels.

So the EU Council has issued a new joint foreign policy declaration on the Iraq question. The core element reads as follows:

“We want to achieve this peacefully. It is clear that this is what the people of Europe want. War is not inevitable. Force should be used only as a last resort. It is for the Iraqi regime to end this crisis by complying with the demands of the Security Council. We reiterate our full support for the ongoing work of U.N. inspectors. They must be given the time and resources that the U.N. Security Council believes they need. However, inspections cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation.”

Amiland, as well as many others, including Spiegel online[link in German], think Schroeder is the loser of the day.

I don’t. I think he is the big winner.

Following last Friday’s UN Security Council meeting he has been able to rather quietly modify his irresponsible and entirely inflexible adamant “no-to-everything-whatever-new-information-may-become-available” by hiding behind a common EU position. Moreover, he can argue that it was more important to save the idea of a common European foreign policy than to – explicitly – stick to his former position.

I think it was a wise move. Sure, there will be people to claim he just “weaseled out”. But I guess he had realised that weaseling to some extent had become inevitable in order to regain some kind of diplomatic flexibility. So the most important problems were the reasons to explain such a move as well as its perceived salience in the “march to war”. Saving the idea of a common European foreign policy was most certainly the right reason – a motive that even the most ardent anti-warriors will likely swallow. And now that so many people have indeed again started to hope for a peaceful solution to the problem – think of the worlds stock markets as an indicator -, after the anti-war demonstrations last weekend and given the hawks sudden, and probably rather unexpected, difficulties in the UN Security Council, the perceived salience of his concession is likely much lower than it would have been should Germany have been forced to modify Schroeder’s aggressive “no” in the light of any new information convincing other doveish Security Council members of the necessity to make use of the means of last resort.

So this EU foreign policy declaration allowed Schroeder a relatively cheap way to unbind himself. And he used it. This semi-disguised semi-acceptance of the theoretical possibilty of war on Iraq as well as of Germany supporting a possible second UN resolution legitimising it could have indeed saved himself the chancellorship, should such a vote become unavoidable. In my interpretation, this makes Schroeder the big winner of this EU summit.

So what’s the current situation? Chirac seemingly holds the keys to the Security Council’s support now – assuming that Russia and China won’t veto a second resolution should France favour one and thus probably to war. I doubt Blair would send troops without a second resolution – he has consistently said he needs a second one for the British public. He may have proven some of his critics wrong about his poll-led governmental style. He may well support war against the British polls. But he’s not suicidal, in my opinion. He would most certainly not order the Britsh military to attack Iraq without a straightforward resolution supporting military action.

So now the big question is – would the US actually go to war without even the British? Militarily, why not. Politically, the “Coalition Of The Willing” looks even less impressive without the British.

Too hard to tell.

Standard
Iraq, US Politics

Stand still so I can shoot you.

International signaling is a very complicated language sometimes. I have wondered for a long time about a European good-cop, bad-cop strategy behind the different approaches to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And reading the following excerpt (pp 7-8) from a policy proposal by the conservative/libertarian US think tank CATO Institute you might well come to the conclusion that the European “NO” is not weakening the world’s threat concerning Hussein’s use of WMDs but actually strengthening it – while at the same time allowing both parties involved to speak loudly in their home markets’ preferred rhetoric. With a US government clearly signaling that the issue is much less disarmament than getting rid of Saddam, it might well be the more balanced European position to regime change – in conjunction with the American military build-up – that could prompt the Iraqi dictator into cooperation with the UN. In this interpretation, even the extreme German position does make at least some sense.

“On the other hand, the signals that the current administration has been sending may have dire ramifications. By holding meetings with the Iraqi opposition groups, by leaking plans for conducting an invasion, and by the strident rhetoric in which his administration has engaged, President Bush has strongly communicated his intent to get rid of Hussein. A recent issue of The Economist quoted John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, as saying, ‘Our policy at the same insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered whether inspectors go in or not.’ So the message to Hussein is, no matter what you do, the U.S. government is coming to eliminate you. That only gives Hussein more incentive to plan a counterattack – in the event of a U.S. invasion – using WMD against U.S. forces, Israel, or Saudi oil fields, or perhaps even smuggling such a weapon onto U.S. soil. In the face of a threat to his own survival, Hussein will have little incentive to do anything but lash out.

Imagine that a burglar breaks into a house and, while he is rooting through a closet, the owner of the house pulls a gun on him. He is startled and caught off guard. The owner might say, ‘Don’t move or I’ll shoot.’ That is a deterrence message, and it is likely the criminal will heed it because he can avoid an extremely undesirable outcome by doing something that is much less objectionable. He is likely to disobey only if he questions the credibility of the owner’s commitment, believes the owner will shoot him regardless of his obedience, or is suicidal. Alternatively, the owner might say, ‘Put your hands on your head or I’ll shoot.’ That is a message of coercion, and it will also probably be followed, unless the same set of conditions as before applies. Instead, what if the owner said, ‘Stand still so I can shoot you’ – the burglar is likely to fight, or try to get away, because he has nothing to lose by doing so. At least if he takes action, he might have slim odds of survival; if he stands still he has no odds of survival whatsoever. That is the position in which Hussein is being put by the Bush administration. There is no ‘less painful’ option that he can follow to avoid the thing he dreads most – the loss of control of his political regime and maybe his life. Under those circumstances, Hussein is very dangerous.”

However, such an interpretation does not help to clarify the deeper issues – regarding different visions of common security as well as the international system – that have emerged more clearly than ever on both sides of the pond in recent months.

Standard
German Politics, US Politics

Honestly.

Have you ever watched Ally McBeal? When Ally could not convince the jury of the case she was presenting she asked Richard Fish for a quick Fishism or told John Cage to squeak and distract the judge or undermine the trustworthiness of a main witness. Apparently, we have arrived at point of the discussion where commenting on global political developments is being turned into an American Court Room – with the Washington Post’s readership as jury.

These day’s Ally is Michael Kelly, who has published a regrettable attempt to discredit German foreign minister Joschka Fischer because of his political biography. Even though most of the things he writes are actually true, Mr Kelly is clearly guilty of forgetting to mention most of what Mr Fischer has said or done after 1968. Sometimes omitting important facts is pretty close to lying.

Joschka Fischer was a member of a violent extra-parliamentary opposition group during the ’68 period. He has always said so. He has always explained – when asked – that he very much regrets his violent past. Moreover, just like Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and many others – he has become a respected and balanced politician. The streets of ’68 may have been an unuasual school, but they were indeed the breeding ground for some very talented political autodidacts. Times change. People can change. Joschka Fischer certainly has.

He has come a long way from being a violent pacifist to a statesman delivering his party’s parliamentary votes in Novermber 2001, when Schroeder put his government at risk by coupling a vote of confidence with the question of deploying troops for operation “Enduring Freedom” – I mention this just in case anyone would like to start another “gratefulness” discussion.

The fact that he has embarrassed Donald Rumsfeld by telling a world audience in English last Saturday that he is not convinced by the simplistic WMD based case for invading Iraq which the American government is consistently feeding its population should be taken seriously by those making this case. Cornering him is not wise. He’s the one who votes for Germany in the security council. And should he lift his arm – he’s the one who could single handedly split the ruling German coalition, his party and create a seismic shift in German politics reminiscent of the 1982 vote on the Pershing rearmament, when the FDP suddenly changed sides. This time, it’s not going to be the party. But it could be Joschka Fischer – indeed Germany’s Mr. Tough Guy – should he deem it necessary. I don’t think he will. And you know why – not because of German or party politics. But because he’s not convinced.

Before go on to read Mr Kelly’s commentary, I would like you to check the following excerpt taken from an interview conducted by CNN with George W Bush during the 1999 primaries. If you think that it is all there is to be said about President Bush (whatever your personal opinion of him is) then you might as well believe that Mr Kelly said all there is to be said about Joschka Fischer.

COOPER: […] Is there any lapse in judgment in your personal life that would make you think twice about running for president?

BUSH: No. I mean I have said many times that there’s nothing in my background that would disqualify me for being governor of Texas much less president.

COOPER: What about alcohol?

BUSH: Probably no more so than others that you know. But I quit drinking. I quit drinking for a couple of reasons. One I was drinking too much at times. But remember during this period of life I was a Sunday school teacher. I was a little league coach. I was a husband. I was a dad, but alcohol began to compete with my energies.

COOPER: Have you ever used drugs? Marijuana, cocaine?

BUSH: I’m not going talk about what I did as a child. What I’m going to talk about and I’m going to say this consistently: It is irrelevant what I did 20 to 30 years ago. What’s relevant is that I have learned from any mistakes that I made. I do not want to send signals to anybody that what Governor Bush did 30 years ago is cool to try.

Standard
compulsory reading, Iraq, US Politics

It’s A Fine Line…

between gratefulness and subservience as well as between provoking journalism and tasteless propaganda.

Yesterday, Gentry Lane told me about this report from Normandy, published in the New York Post. The article tells the story of Howard Manoian, an American who participated in the D-day liberation of France in 1944, and has settled there 18 years ago.

On the one hand, the article is telling Mr. Manoian’s personal D-day story – and as so many personal war stories, his story, too, is a reminder of the horrors of war. On the other hand, the author, Steve Dunleavy, is using this powerful tale to denounce France as ungrateful traitor. Unfortunately, Mr. Manoian’s story is not even really representative of Mr. Dunleavy’s ranting – if you read the article, you will realize that almost all of the jingoist rethoric is not between speechmarks. It has leaked out of Mr Dunleavy’s pen.

Today, I find an instapundit.com link to the comment section of Mr. Dunleavy’s article, which features an interesting, and intense discussion of the subjects I mentioned above – the fine lines. Europe will always be grateful for D-day. But the very success of the American attempt to help the torn continent back to its enlightenment roots logically excludes thoughtless subservience.

When it comes to more than words, the difference between gratefulness and subservience becomes a fine line indeed. As for the other fine line, the one between provoking journalism and tasteless propaganda, I recommend you read the comments yourselves. Here are two that indicate the wide range of opinions concerning the article.

February 11, 2003 — As I opened my Post this morning, the anger I’ve felt over these past few weeks reached a total rage when I read Steve Dunleavy’s column from Normandy (“Sacrifice,” Feb. 10). I was born in France, married my wonderful American husband of 41 years in Paris, came to the United States in 1963 and became an American citizen. France can now disappear into the ocean as far as I’m concerned.

Claudette Davison, Brick, N.J.

The twisted logic and blatant antagonism of using the Normandy cemetery as an indictment against French reluctance on Iraq is worthy of Joseph Goebbels. Rather than exploit the dead of a just cause like WWII, why don’t you run a piece about the massive folly of Vietnam? You could show a French military graveyard with the headline: “The French warned us, and we were too arrogant to listen.”

Mark McCarthy, Manhattan

Standard