Could last night's The Daily Show have been funnier? Jon Stewart conducted a mock interview between President George Bush and the only person who could challenge him in matter of foreign policy: Governor George Bush, the guy who ran for president several years ago. The point of the interview was to highlight the radical shift that he has taken in his thought on foreign policy. No longer does he say we should not "nation-build": we will establish democracy. Whereas once he felt that armed intervention and imposing-our-will would turn the world against us and make the world dangerous for Americans, he advocates armed intervention and imposing American will on foreign peoples. I have always suspected that the conservative attitude toward foreign policy in the 1990s was simply their way of denying more authority to Clinton. Will the next non-conservative president face similar critiques of interventionism?

Yesterday, I engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Geek Lethal (actually, we just exchanged emails--he is near the top of the list of people who could kick my !ss.) We were talking about American confidence in diplomacy. Here are some choice quotes:

GL: [Niall] Ferguson is correct, I feel, in drawing attention to the influence of military leaders in matters of state. There is a new book by Dana Priest on this very topic that I've not read yet but intend to. At any rate, Ferguson doesn't mention, and may be unaware, of the ridiculously underfunded state of the US State Dept. Careers in overseas might be interesting to people like you or me, but they pay dick, you spend your first 2 years a total flunky, and that's if you get hired at all after a looooong wait.

My bad thought: There is currently no love for diplomats in US politics. I laugh whenever the government needs someone to negotiate in the Middle East. They usually appoint some retired general because he might be THE ONLY PERSON WITH EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH THE PARTIES INVOLVED, but he seldom possess the broader diplomatic skills.

GL: I wonder if there are associated problems based in a sensationalistic free press. An inflamed public exerts pressure on elected officials, who in turn wish to keep their jobs more than shepherd the most thoughtful policy. Officials in turn grate against their foreign counterparts, which filters down to that foreign public, and then back again. An ill-tempered feedback loop. ... Nevertheless, the policy as executed seems to have worked thus far[.]

My bad thoughts: My concern deals with the success of diplomacy: did the political climate of US during the last year circumscribe the diplomatic options open to Colin
Powell when dealing with the UN and the European states and organizations? Itwould seem that he could not act on his fullest authority, that he was forced to translate established military strategies into diplomatic language, but he was denied independent action. Do Americans need to express confidence in diplomacy in order for it to succeed?



The Helms Effect
In the early nineties politicians started to hypothesize that an international controlling authority could lead a world beyond the Cold War. Bush Senior, Powell (part of the New World Order, Clinton, even Reagan ("we must work toward a standing UN force--an army of conscience--that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out human sanctuaries through force if necessary.") ... lined up to decry that it was time to fulfill the promise of the UN. This meant that the UN would deepen its peace keeping/armed interventions. The (First) Gulf War appeared to have been a model of cooperation between international organizations and nation-states. The point was that the end of the Cold War presented the opportunity to actually invest the UN with power rather than deny it legitimacy--something that the US and the USSR had done themselves in order to conduct policies that would not have met the approval of that body.

The "America First"-ers came out of the woodwork with immediacy. Article on Jesse Helms opposition to the UN date from the 1970's (do a Lexus-Nexus search--it will go on for pages.) Their primary concerns were preservation of American sovereignty and destroying Clinton. (Let us not forget Helms was the senator who suggested that Clinton would be shot by soldiers if he visited the Carolinas.) Helms and company withheld funding and troops from vital peace keeping missions. As a result those missions were undermanned and under-supplied for the roles that had been assigned to them. In Rwanda in particular, the UN force did not have the skills, numbers, or equipment to even defend themselves let alone halt the genocide taking place around them. They were denied the ability to act in combat (for which the US Senate, Clinton administration, and UN share are equally responsible.) Helms himself (as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) held up funding for UN projects (many of which were policies initiated by Bush Sr.) He refused to let Americans die for "nation-building" and "utopian visions of the world." He wanted to deny any greater authority on the part of the UN: "The United Nations should do what they're good at. Talk." (May 3, 1995) The Cato Institute complained that other nations were waiting around for the UN to solve their problems rather than solving them themselves, creating "a very unhealthy dependence" among countries. In the Institutes opinion, armed intervention was unnecessary in the post-Cold War world. Their policy papers from the 1990 claim that the US cannot be harmed and, therefore, has not interest in becoming deeply involved in the affairs of other nation-states. How was the UN supposed to build itself as an international force for peace when denied these powers, both literally and figuratively by Senate Conservatives? (I say conservative because he was himself at war with Republicans over foreign policy--remember Weld?) Helms himself preferred supporting terrorists like Savimbi who not only attacked the legitimate Angolan government but American businesses as well. Eventually, the US became the biggest debtor to the UN, accounting for 60% of monies owed to that organization. The other debtor countries were poor and financial unstable--places like Bangladesh. What Helms allowed to be funded were projects by the US taken in the name of the UN.

Quotes:

Helms: I will recommend ... terminating or greatly reducing funds for almost every UN- sponsored organization except UNICEF. (May 6, 1995)

Helms: But a United Nations that seeks to impose its presumed authority on the American people, without their consent, begs for confrontation and--I want to be candid with you--eventual US withdrawal. (January 21, 2000)

Question: was the diplomatic flap from early last year an attempt to deal a death-blow to the UN?