« Conservacool | Main | The Belly Of the Beast »
NDI Conference
Check out Laura Rozen for more on what we heard at the NDI preview of the Kerry foreign policy. She's a bit more enthusiastic about it than I am. Rand Beers was operating, I think, at a very strange level of generality. He didn't offer much in the way of specifics on, say, North Korea, Iran, or Darfur. That's fine as far as it goes -- there's only so much time in the day, and much of foreign policy is dealing with the unexpected. But he didn't offer us a really general picture of Kerryism/Beersism either. Didn't discuss minor issues like what the goals of a Kerry administration would be. Instead, he focused on these mid-level implementation issues. You got a good sense of, if Kerry decided to try and do X, how would he go about doing it. That's a good thing to know about, and lord knows the Bushies could stand to take a management seminar or something so they can learn how to get shit done, but goals really do matter.
Beers said a Kerry administration would have "the same" goals as the Bush administration which was his way, I think, of just trying to say that he loves freedom, hates terrorism, and enjoys apple pie. That's okay campaign shorthand for "we're mainstream" but it really doesn't say much since rhetoric aside it's not at all clear to me what Bush's goals really are. I'm seeing a lot of muddle and drift. I assume Beers doesn't mean to be saying that he's going to offer some better-managed muddle and drift, but I would like to know what he was trying to say. Holbrooke is a cool dude, though, and I heartily endorse what Laura says on that score.
Now that I'm here at the end it occurs to me that the actual reason I wanted to link to that post was to direct your attention to her scooplet about Robin Cook and the Niger business.
July 28, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8345678b069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NDI Conference:
» Kerry and the War from Rodger A. Payne's Blog
Bush's reelection means neocon cowboys will still be running American foreign policy. Kerry's election means the freedom to innovate about the policy.
This neither makes Kerry Bush-lite nor a liberal imperialist. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2004 12:46:03 PM
Comments
In foreign policy, as in life, the process IS the goal. The road to hell is paved with laudable goals.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 28, 2004 5:42:57 PM
What epistemology said. "Increasing Peace and prosperity" sounds like BS, but "installing democracy in Iran" is a whole lot worse. How specific do you want them to get in a public forum?
Great piece, worked well with Rozen's. I suspect she has an actual scoop, real news, but half the blogosphere aren't going to consider Cook a credible source. And the Redstate dudes hate Holbrooke, and think it is entirely Carter and Perry's fault that NK has nukes. I will look for this panel in the CSPAN archives.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 28, 2004 6:06:59 PM
"Holbrooke is a cool dude"
Dick Holbrooke is a very cool dude.
My two bureaucratic heroes from the Clinton administration are Holbrooke and Gene Sperling.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 28, 2004 6:12:42 PM
That "scooplet" is old news. Blair has been accusing France of passing him bad Niger intel for some time.
Posted by: Yamamoto | Jul 28, 2004 6:14:15 PM
Holbrooke 4-ever.
Just bought his book recently; have to read it soon.
I have to say that it's a damn shame Lake and then Berger were the NSAs instead of Holbrooke. What was Clinton thinking? He had to bring him in from the cold to pull his nads out of the fire ... ah well, now's his chance. Here's hoping he gets it.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 28, 2004 6:16:18 PM
Sorry, couldn't make it all the way down to where she mentioned Robin Cook. See, I completely fell off my chair laughing when she went on about how great William Perry was in negotiating that "deal" with North Korea! In fact I'm still smiling thinking about it!
Posted by: Al | Jul 28, 2004 9:25:48 PM
At least this Holbrooke guy is smarter than Matthew:
Room for some new multilateral institutions, but not to replace the UN (as some neocons have proposed the Community of Democracies would do -- Holbrooke says it won't work, and he's right.
vs. MY (from google):
Glenn Reynolds endorsed and effort discussed by Jonathan Rauch to put together a democracy caucus in the UN. I like the idea, too -- first saw it in George Soros' The Bubble of American Supremacy.
So if Holbrooke gets the job that stupid idea gets dumped where it belongs.
Posted by: UN rulez | Jul 29, 2004 1:09:31 AM
Beer's vagueness may be a disinclination to pre-announce; ever heard of "vaporware?"
Posted by: Linkmeister | Jul 29, 2004 2:07:59 AM
Enough of these empty phrases already. What does "return to an era of alliances" mean?
Do we assume that France's foreign policy is based only upon the personality of the person occupying the White House? If somebody wants to makes that case please do.
What concessions would Kerry make to Chirac? Would Kerry place US troops under French command? Would Kerry throw Israel under the bus to enhance French prestige in Arab world? Does Kerry intend to turn the US Constitution into an advisory document? Alliances do not come cheaply. I want to know how much American sovereignty or freedom of action Kerry is willing to give up for a sweet sounding phrase like multilateralsism.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 6:28:35 AM
I want to know how much American sovereignty or freedom of action Kerry is willing to give up for a sweet sounding phrase like multilateralsism.
That's a good question. I can only say, wait four years, and then you'll know.
Until then, let's continue with the "empty phrases"!
Posted by: Duh | Jul 29, 2004 8:37:51 AM
Do we assume that France's foreign policy is based only upon the personality of the person occupying the White House? If somebody wants to makes that case please do.
Why does it always have to be about France? Sheesh. The fact that Tony Blair pushed through approval of the Iraq misadventure on false pretenses leads far too many Americans to presume that the British electorate isn't in a mood to vote for people who'd tell Bush to go Cheney himself. Not so. The same applies to Australia. What a heap of straw.
Ever heard the line about catching more flies with honey than vinegar, Warthog? Kerry and his foreign policy team actually show the capacity to avoid pissing off other countries just for the sheer fun of it.
Here's a little experiment. Next time you eat out, insult the server as soon as you get there. Because you can. Then ask youself why the chef spat in the soup.
Posted by: nick | Jul 29, 2004 8:44:46 AM
"What does 'return to an era of alliances' mean?
"Do we assume that France's foreign policy is based only upon the personality of the person occupying the White House?"
What a "return to the era of alliances" means is that we will handle France the way we handled France 1945-2001. That didn't turn out too badly for us . . .
France is not our enemy. France supported us in Gulf War I, and in Afghanistan, and in containment of Saddam. True, France did not support us in attacking Iraq--but you know what? In hindsight, France was right!
"Would Kerry place US troops under French command? * * * I want to know how much American sovereignty or freedom of action Kerry is willing to give up for a sweet sounding phrase like multilateralsism."
There is a bit of a perspective problem here. French troops serve under US command all the time, and nobody thinks it strange. For some reason, if France does not do exactly as we tell it in every respect, the Bushies and other right wingnuts start worrying about the resulting threat to US soveriegnty.
France is our faithful and loyal ally, but it is not our client state, nor is it a province of the American Empire.
Posted by: rea | Jul 29, 2004 9:17:20 AM
I used France because it is the most visible obstructionist. Within the past few days France has singlehandedly obstructed the deployment of NATO personnel to train Iraqi security forces, and is even seeking to delay any further dicussion on the matter until September.
For whatever the reason it is apparent that France sees the prolongation of violence in Iraq as in its national interest. I asked a legitimate, substantive question what Kerry would do to change that and got pablum for a response. This thread is the perfect example of why people will never again trust the Democrats with national security.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 9:23:29 AM
"Do we assume that France's foreign policy is based only upon the personality of the person occupying the White House? If somebody wants to makes that case please do."
- Warthog
I hate to point out the obvious, but the person occupying the Whitehouse actually has a lot of control over the US foreign policy, and by using that control can affect that foreign policy. Said occupant can come up with plans that are competent, with which another nation might want to ally themselves, or as is the case with Bush, can come up with policy than any foreign leader would run screaming from.
If Bush had just been the same jackass that he is, but instead had good support from his team, and came up with a good workable plan that was negotiated in good faith with other nations, it is likely that France would have gone along. But when you combine jackass + incompetent cabinet + wishful thinking + mindless antagonism + disdain for others concerns + bad faith, you wind up with what we have.
Posted by: theCoach | Jul 29, 2004 9:29:12 AM
I asked a legitimate, substantive question what Kerry would do to change that and got pablum for a response.
No, you did some fact-challenged France-bashing. Sorry, you lose. Back to the fantasist basement with you.
Posted by: nick | Jul 29, 2004 9:30:15 AM
The only obvious thing is that you are not capable of articulating a Democratic foreign policy except in terms of bashing the sitting President. The more I participate in these Dem oriented blogs the more convinced I become that the Left is a shell filled with nothing but invective.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 9:34:01 AM
Al-Jazeera.net (Qatar), 13 Jul 04
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hushiar Zibari has appealed to NATO to hasten promised training for his country's security forces and provide border security support and military equipment as well. "We need this training you promised us in Istanbul to be carried out as soon as possible. We need it. In fact, we are in a race against time and it's a matter of urgency," Zibari said on Tuesday in the Belgian capital Brussels after he met with ambassadors of the 26-nation alliance. The US-dominated alliance agreed at a summit in Turkey in June to help train the interim Iraqi government's security forces, which are facing a violent insurgency. However, the wording of the summit agreement was left vague because France resisted a US push for the alliance to be a central agency for training inside the country.
Al-Jazeera.net (Qatar), 28 Jul 04
Differences between France and a majority of allies, including the United States has prevented NATO from agreeing on where, when and how to train Iraq's security forces. A meeting of ambassadors to resolve stark differences in views failed to reach a compromise. A NATO official said the envoys would meet again later in the day, though it was not immediately clear whether France would ultimately block the others' determination to launch the training mission inside Iraq as early as next month. "There will be another meeting today ... because more discussion is needed," a NATO official said, declining to give details of the closed-door talks.
Why is reporting the facts France bashing?
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 9:43:17 AM
Why is reporting the facts France bashing?
Where's the fucking context, Warthog? The three years of the US treating NATO as its bitch? The fact that Turkey also regarded Bush's use of NATO as a trick card, pulled out at the last minute? Or the fact that non-US forces are working under NATO as the defenders of Kabulistan?
No wonder it's impossible for Republicans to do foreign policy, when they operate with the memories of goldfish and the finesse of rhinos.
Posted by: nick | Jul 29, 2004 10:03:50 AM
The drill never changes. A wind-up doll has more substance.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 10:08:19 AM
Look, what a Kerry foreign policy will have to do is deal with those nations that sit atop the alliance structures, ie the UN and NATO. This includes China, Russia, and France. How JFK 2 would do this should require some explanation and some specifics, especially those nations see any US action that they do not approve of as inimical to their national interests. (And if they have the right to national interests, then doesn't the US, no?)
Posted by: lancer | Jul 29, 2004 11:07:49 AM
I appreciate the civility of your response but you do not answer the question. My original post was premised on the fact that those nations you named do in fact have national interests that are not determined by the personality of the person sitting in the White House.
Rather than characterize what Kerry would do I want to know specifically what Kerry would or could do differently, or what concessions would he likely make to foreign nations to gain cooperation that has so far been deemed contrary to those nations' national interests? I believe it to be a critical question. At least one segment of the Democratic Party promotes a foreign policy that would willingly subjugate the US Constitution to International treaties. If that is Kerry's plan also I would like to know about it.
Although it has gone almost entirely unnoticed the Proliferation Security Initiative is a very good example of how the Bush Administration has in fact forged alliances to accomplish serious objectives. Lybia will never become nuclear armed because of the Proliferation Security Initiative. This story should have been 100 point headlines.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 11:46:54 AM
"At least one segment of the Democratic Party promotes a foreign policy that would willingly subjugate the US Constitution to International treaties."
What tiresome bullshit! Nobody is proposing anything of the sort. If you would deign to explain your meaning, I suspect we would instantly conclude that you have some peculiar notions of the US Constitution. From your previous posts, it looks like you think it would be unconstitutional for US troops to serve under a foriegn allied commander, but of course,that occurred in both World Wars without any constitutional difficulties.
"I want to know specifically what Kerry would or could do differently, or what concessions would he likely make to foreign nations"
(1) Unlike Nixon in '68 or Reagan in '80, Kerry isn't going to sabotage US negotiations with foriegn countries by indicating that a different deal will be available after he takes office.
(2) Kerry won't take office until next January. He can't make a binding committment to specifics now, because things will be diffferent next January, in ways we can't presently foresee with certainty. Can you tell us now, specifically and with certainty, whether you're going to buy a new car next January? Or do you have to say that it depends on whether you are still employed and whether you total your present car in the meantime? Election campaigns are not the time or place for policy specifics
(3) Most of the time, when Bushies criticize Kerry for not having policies, what they mean is that they aren't interested in paying attention to what Kerry has been saying, they can't defend the administration's positions, and that they prefer to engage in a battle of soundbites. Such an attitutde is understadable from the defenders of an adminstration whose foreign policy seems t consist of campaigning for re-election, huge no-bid contracts for corporate contributors, and torture.
Posted by: rea | Jul 29, 2004 12:32:36 PM
I want to know specifically what Kerry would or could do differently, or what concessions would he likely make to foreign nations to gain cooperation that has so far been deemed contrary to those nations' national interests?
Specifically, Kerry will not be an asshole. He will not make 'old Europe' cracks, he will not countenance the whole 'Freedom Fries' idiocy, he will not turn co-operation with the US into a poison chalice for a foreign government. How is this difficult for you to comprehend? 'Not being an asshole' is the primary 'concession' here. Is this too much for you to accept?
Posted by: nick | Jul 29, 2004 1:28:48 PM
At least one segment of the Democratic Party promotes a foreign policy that would willingly subjugate the US Constitution to International treaties.
Er, no; it promotes a foreign policy that heeds Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Believe it or not, the constitution is as capable of dealing with 'International Treaties' as it is with the acts of the executive and the laws passed by the legislature. That's to say the judiciary has the capacity to decide upon the constitutionality of treaties that are entered into by the executive and ratified by the legislature. Sheesh. This is basic checks-and-balances stuff.
Posted by: nick | Jul 29, 2004 1:35:59 PM
What tiresome bullshit! Nobody is proposing anything of the sort.
The comprehensive test ban, the Kyoto treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Biological Warfare Convention Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Landmine convention all, some more than others, cede US sovereignty to internatinal organizations, disadvantage the USA economically, or take away the safeguards of the US Constitution for US citizens.
The UN has advanced several, more "how you live your life" oriented treaties dealing with basic activities like child care and education and who gets to make the final decisions.
I am not saying that the stated goals of any of these proposed treaties is bad, or that implementing some elements of them would not be a good thing to do. My point is that before Americans give up a Constitutional right by treaty, or become economically disadvantaged that they have the opportunity to (1) be informed of the result, and (2) debate the issues.
Howard Dean, for one, says that the USA should participate in practically this whole laundry list.
I cannot say if I am buying a new car in January but I can say if I would be willing to travel across the country in January to do. In the many months of electioneering I have yet to hear how the Dems will continue the WOT. Would they continue to surround Iran as Bush has done with working alliances in the Caspian Basin, or would they abandon those alliances for "dialogue" with the mullahs? These are serious matters and Kerry has failed utterly to address them. Saying he would do better is not good enough.
Posted by: Warthog | Jul 29, 2004 2:01:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
