A View From Prague: Can Any Candidate End the Persistence of our Tragic Diplomacy?

While scandals, failed military interventions, or public cynicism can characterize the terms of several Presidents in American history, few will stand out more than the two terms of George W. Bush. After September 11th, 2001, the president quickly went from a public approval rate of less than 50% to nearly 90%. No other president -- except for his father -- had experienced such a manic shift in the pendulum of public support. Because of this, some historians began to make claims that George W. Bush would go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents. However, these historians (not to mention politicians), caught up in the emotion of the time, overlooked the confrontational rhetoric and naïve idealism of the president and his close advisors. In classical Greek tragedies, the main character (usually an influential public figure) experiences a downfall as a result of hubris. This single word can sum up the two terms of Number 43's presidency.

"We're in a lot of trouble!", said Peter Finch's character Howard Beale from the 1976 film Network. And certainly, Americans aren't the only ones who are "as mad as hell." As an American currently living abroad, it is easy for me to see the growing cynicism toward the United States and its policies around the world. This is the byproduct of the last eight years, which have been the low point of our tragic modern diplomacy. There were many missed opportunities following the events of September 11th, including failure in renewing President Clinton's peace process initiative and maintaining close relationships with those who were sympathetic.

Instead, the exact opposite was done and now we are faced with two failed wars, an unstable Middle East, an empowered Iran, and no even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict (perhaps America's most key issue to regaining global respect). As a result of these failed policies, the president has managed to destroy the confidence of our allies and, equally as important, raised the level of mistrust in the Arab and Muslim world to an all-time high. It is frightening to imagine that our position in the world could get any worse.

The question is, which candidate will get us out of these quagmires, and more importantly who will engage in proper and smart diplomacy by making a departure from the current model of military force and regain the lost support from abroad? After having closely analyzed the speeches of the three 2008 and presidential candidates, the future doesn't look too bright.

Here is why:

John McCain

McCain's fiery speeches make statements of the necessity for more than just a strategic bond between Israel and the United States, but also a "moral one." In a speech before United Christians for Israel, he called for American support to "intensify to include providing military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge," and to isolate Hamas. With regards to Iran, he maintains that diplomacy should be the first measure, however he has made it clear that a nuclear Iran will not be accepted.

He is committed to finishing the job in Iraq, which is no doubt sincere, but realistically doesn't seem possible to accomplish without the help from the international community. Also, McCain's approach to national security includes expanding the military, modernizing weapons systems, and developing and deploying missile defenses. Clearly, McCain's foreign policy will be a mere continuation of Bush's, and that certainly won't put the United States in better standing with the world.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton has made it one of her top issues to bring American troops home as soon as possible. This message seems rather irresponsible. While a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the war, it would not be wise to make a rash decision to bring American troops home with little dialogue, just as it was not wise to rush into the war with little dialogue.

It has been made clear that Clinton would continue to give unconditional support to Israel. An interesting fact is that on her Internet Web site, there is barely any attention given to the issue. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this, but one thing for sure is that she has not demonstrated an even-handed vision during the debates and her speeches.

However, Clinton can be praised for her strong favorability towards diplomatic engagement with Iran. She has stated that this is the most pragmatic way to finding a solution. During the June 3rd debate, she made the point that the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in diplomacy with each other throughout the Cold War and just because Iran is an enemy doesn't mean their shouldn't be any engagement in diplomacy. Her stance on Iran is much different from her counterpart McCain, who makes outright references to conflict with Iran. But her 2007 vote to declare Iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization was either simply counterproductive to future diplomacy or a crass attempt to shore up her image as a tough leader for the 2008 general election.

While she would be less confrontational and, therefore, might do better than McCain, she still does not possess a clear plan to heal the wounds created by our tragic diplomacy.

Barack Obama

Regarding Iraq, Obama has a similar stance to that of Clinton. He also stresses an aggressive attempt to engage in regional diplomacy with both Syria and Iran. He resembles both of his opponents with the belief that the United States primary role in the Middle East must be to ensure the security of Israel. However, his speech to the Jewish community leaders in Cleveland offered a rare opportunity for new dialogue on the issue U.S. and Israeli relations. He stated,

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress And frankly, some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is nonmilitary or non-belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that, I think, is something we have to have an honest dialogue about."

Such a comment is rare in American politics and should be surprising because of his past statements from various speeches and debates. However, it demonstrates that Obama has the capability of envisioning an evenhanded approach to the issue. This could be due to his background; being the son of an African immigrant and having lived abroad in Indonesia. Therefore, Obama is likely to have a more global view than his opponents. This asset is something necessary for the future of American diplomacy. Right now, the only hope for a better foreign policy under the leadership of Obama is seen by his promise to closely communicate with allies and the recent remark made in Cleveland. That is still not enough.
Conclusion

The reality is that so much can change between now and election day, including the foreign policy stances of McCain, Clinton, and Obama. However, one thing for sure is that the winner of 2008 will begin their presidency with a number of issues that are among the biggest challenges of the last few decades. But with well-informed decisions, a departure from the current model of confrontation, and a stronger emphasis on soft power, the U.S. can begin to improve its image while preserving its influence. This can only be done with engaging and listening to allies (for example: about how to deal with Iraq since it is in the interest of all.), and enforcing an even-handed policy with Israel and Palestine, which is in the interest of all three players. Equally as important, recklessly pulling out of Iraq without sufficient dialogue and careful planning, and engaging in confrontational rhetoric with Iran will only continue the tragic history of American diplomacy, a sure path to a whole new set of major issues.

Finally, special attention should be given to the most recent failed attempt at a peace process in Annapolis. During the Forum 2000 meetings in Prague, last year in October, Kishore Mahbubani, prominent author and scholar, stated that if there is one issue America should focus all of its attention on, it is the "silver bullet issue" of Israel and Palestine. Also, during an interview between Al-Jazeera's correspondent Mark Levine and a senior Hamas leader, Levine asked the anonymous leader about whether the violence works or not. He replied "We know the violence doesn't work, but we don't know how to stop." This reality is all the more reason why the next administration should dedicate a great deal of its foreign policy efforts to tempering its tendency to tip too far towards Israel, and play more of a just, rational, and diplomatically aggressive role in creating a two-state solution that is not influenced by interest groups in Washington.

Unfortunately, none of the candidates has proved they have the capability of doing this.

Comments

[Radiola]

HuffPost's Pick

Jeremy Zogby expresses many of my own thoughts regarding the impending election: I am not vastly thrilled with any of the candidates, and cannot take solace in such a meager selection. The crises created by the current administration (and seeded by the previous administration) demand a leader of such deep magnanimity, wisdom, and compassion that we have not seen since Lincoln, with the economic resourcefulness of FDR. No such hybrid is on the scene.

I can't feel hope; the best of the current crop is merely adequate, the worst is unstable and dreadful, the middling choice is the personification of political ambition. Pretty speeches and shouted slogans notwithstanding, we're in for much more of the same as we've had--and worse.

I appreciate Jeremy Zogby's clear view of the situation, and envy him his delightful vantage point in Prague, with its cheap, excellent Pilsner. Cheers!

[JacobSinger]

HuffPost's Pick

In regards to this statement:

"Equally as important, recklessly pulling out of Iraq without sufficient dialogue and careful planning, and engaging in confrontational rhetoric with Iran will only continue the tragic history of American diplomacy, a sure path to a whole new set of major issues."

Exactly to what means would you make plans? From my perspective, there was a single opportunity for acting responsibly--by not invading Iraq--and that opportunity is long past. No aspect of this situation will improve through diplomatic efforts on the part of the US, and the international community has no desire to join us in futile attempts of sorting out a mess that never should have been made.

Quagmire: a situation from which extrication is very difficult. Such is where we are, and while extrication is indeed very difficult, it is not impossible--but the only possible way to extricate ourselves from Iraq is to accept the losses and get out.

The Iraqis are not children that must be stewarded through their choices for their future--concepts such as those are derived from greed and vanity; the oil beneath their land is their oil, not ours. We need to accept that fact and move on.

The better use of diplomacy would to be to focus on Iran and Syria, and to deal with our own hypocrisy concerning nuclear weapons; who can reasonably justify our demands for other nations to disarm or not develop nuclear weapons when we possess thousands of them? What nation can take our efforts at so-called diplomacy serious when we use our control of the UN to subvert and nullify efforts by the international community [through the UN] to stand up for Palestinian human rights?

We have far too many substantial issues to correct in our own house before we can credibly address those of other nations.

[outnow]

HuffPost's Pick

The nature of American has changed from 1971. The repeal of the Bretton Woods agreement set the stage for a predatory economy both at home and abroad. Speculative and investment capitalism created a large gap between the rich and the poor.. These policies eroded democracy and resulted in an aggressive foreign policy and destabilization of the American empire at home and abroad. The balance between capitalism and socialism has tilted in favor of unregulated capitalism which itself is a form of anarchy.


Israel is a foot soldier or junior partner in the conquest of the important geopolitical area of the Middle East with its vast energy resources and important location.


There has been a pervasive deficit of empathy and caring for others and for the public good. This has profound implications for our decline as a nation as well as for our reckless militarism. The out-of-control individualism, consumerism, and faith in technology have left American vulnerable to internal corrosion and international attack.


The "silver bullet" you suggest is unfortunately not the key to peace in the Middle East. The key is the abandonment of the policies of using the international monetary system as a means of exchange. The Wall Street-Treasury Complex has caused a sharp turn to the right domestically and in foreign policy as our manufacturing base has declined. 90% of all money is "made" by speculative and investment capitalism.


Is this a failed presidency or a failed nation? George W. Bush is as much of a symptom as a cause The tragedy of American diplomacy is the result of years of expansionism and the idea of unlimited economic growth supporting unlimited military power. Speculators tried to profit from slight changes in currency values. Meanwhile, the repeal of Bretton Woods laid down the essential trarmlines of American foreign economic policy for the next thirty years...the international economic order was to be built unilaterally around American interests. Again by 2002 90% of all money circulating around the world had nothing to do with the exchange of goods or services. The neoliberal market ideology has been building for years.


The real income of the bottom 90% of Americans has fallen since 1973. CEO compensation rose 12,444%. The United States resembles the income distribution picture of a Banana Republic. George W. Bush pushed for more tax cuts giving a 40% of the benefits to the richest 1% and less than 1% to the bottom 20%.


So globalization is incompatible with a democratic society because it concentrates great wealth in the hands of a few. American foreign policy is at least partly driven by its economic policy. By 1998 the richest 400 people on the planet had as much wealth as the bottom one-half. 3 billion people live on less than $2.00 per day.


Since our political process and foreign policy are driven by unregulated greed and unbridled capitalism, and money largely controls the political process, the silver bullet lies in restructuring the international system of finance to create a fixed system of exchange. Globalization replaces the old dictators. We are trying to get the Islamic world to accept the value structure of Western Modernity. It's all interwoven, we cannot escape our connection to the poor.

[JacobSinger]

An exceptional well written and well considered piece; many thanks. I dare say you've upstaged the original article ;-)

[BPOV]

Sinbad-Hillary the Real Deal
Errol Kennedy
The current group of political candidates is arguably one of the very best ever assembled, from Senators McCain-a true war hero, Hillary Clinton-First Lady current New York Senator and Armed Services Committee member and Barak Obama-Community organizer, Illinois House Member and State Senator. What boggles my mind is the desire by some to reduce the level of discourse by resorting to name calling and distorting an opponent’s good name and record. Take the recent Washington Post article titled Sinbad Unloads on “Hillary Clinton” by Mary Ann Akers (March 11, 2008) in which the comedian made light of her visit to Bosnia with respect to the level of threat in theatre at that time.
As I recall, the group (including Chelsea Clinton, Sinbad, Sheryl Crow and Secretary of the Army Togo West) visited at the main base at Tuzla and was very well received. She was also accompanied by Chelsea and Secretary of the Army Togo West as she visited Camp Alicia, “the Dawg Pound” later that day (Mike O’Conner, Response by G.I.’s Mixed, New York Times, March 26, 1996) a few miles away. I don’t recall Sinbad making it out to that base, that being said however these visits and the many others, including the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, served largely to uplift the morale of the troops and reinforced the view to our fighting men and women that our nation appreciated our service, and they did. Soon after that visit there was another memorable visitor to Camp Alicia, the late Ron Brown, United States Secretary of Commerce. Secretary Brown and his entourage including a high level trade mission, was the first to bring “Burger King” to our outpost, sadly he lost his life (3 April 1996) in that war torn area about a week later. In a private conversation with the Secretary just moments before he left on what turned out to be his last flight, he made glowing reference to the fact that the First Lady had also visited the area. All of these visits assumed some risks as the area was still very volatile to say the least. As service-members, security procedures were taken very seriously on a daily basis, perhaps Sinbad didn’t see the large number of sandbags built around each Camp and the number of armed guards in the towers or the roving vehicle and foot patrols around the perimeters, but how could he if his main concern was food? Sinbad does not recall or may not have known that there was a constant threat of bullets in the theatre, but he may recall seeing all American troops wearing full military gear, including flak vests and Kevlar (helmets) at all times, that Sir was done for a reason.
So let’s agree to disagree with our candidates, but never be disrespectful in the event they achieve their goal at high office and return the favor to the American people. Fortunately regardless of who gets elected there will be no chance of our country going the way of Bosnia or of Iraq for that matter, which is a testament to our leaders whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Independents. For this we must be proud and if they do not live up to our expectations four years is a very short time to once again exercise our right to vote.
Sinbad is a very funny guy and we were happy for his visit to Bosnia, I’d like to think this was an attempt to inject some much needed humor in the campaign.

[StephenSmoliar]

HuffPost's Pick

Yesterday Huffington Post readers were treated to an analysis of Wall Street as "A Modern-Day Greek Tragedy." Today the metaphor has passed to Bush. Yesterday, I argued that the metaphor was "nothing more than a rhetorical ploy of attracting attention through pretension."

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/03/greek-drama-on-wall-street-misreading.html

Today I find myself thinking in different terms: If Bush were a character in a Greek drama (or, for that matter, ANY literary narrative), who would he be? After considerable thought, I think I finally found a satisfactory answer: Pentheus, the king of Thebes who inherited the throne upon the abdication of his grandfather Cadmus. In Euripides' play, THE BACCHAE, Pentheus bans all worship of Dionysus (son of Zeus and born in Thebes), because his personal morality does not tolerate the orgiastic rituals (celebrated by the Bacchae), which constitute that worship. The play is basically about Dionysus' revenge; and, as can be expected, Pentheus comes to a REALLY bad end.

Most of the tragedies involve αγών (antAGONism) between two nobles (Antigone versus Creon, for example). However, Dionysus is less an individual than a representative of a prevailing culture. It is not that Pentheus is defying a god (or demi-god) but that he is defying the life style of a sizeable number of his subjects. That is where I see the answer to my question, but Bush has acted on a scale that dwarfs that of Pentheus. If Pentheus defied the accepted practices of a single city-state, Bush escalated his defiance beyond the boundaries of his own "realm" in his formation of his "coalition of the willing" (SIC).

Needless to say, the author of a drama has a much better job of resolving matters than those of us who are stuck with the consequences of bad decisions in "real life." Nevertheless, I find it interesting that the final words (translated by William Arrowsmith) of the Chorus can easily be read as a recrimination of the sort of "faith-based" reasoning that Bush shared with Pentheus:

The gods have many shapes.
The gods bring many things
to their accomplishment.
And what was most expected
has not been accomplished.
But god has found his way
for what no man expected.
So ends the play.

If that "way" is the way of statecraft (as in the title of Dennis Ross' book), then our country may get over the problem that "what was most expected has not been accomplished" and relegate the memory of Pentheus/Bush to a bad dream best applied to another screenplay!

[outnow]

Henry V by Shakespeare talks of deception to start a war by a boy King. Atrocities abound with the children being killed and the Church backing the war.