Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

an imperial presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • an imperial presidency

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10416779/site/newsweek/

    An Imperial Presidency
    Bush's travel schedule seems to involve as little contact as possible with the country he is in.

    By Fareed Zakaria
    Newsweek

    Dec. 19, 2005 issue - President Bush's most recent foreign trips, to Latin America and Asia, went off as expected. He was accompanied by 2,000 people, several airplanes, two helicopters and a tightly scripted schedule. He met few locals and saw little except palaces and conference rooms. When the program changed, it was to cut out dinners and meetings. Bush's travel schedule seems calculated to involve as little contact as possible with the country he is in. Perhaps the White House should look into the new teleconferencing technologies. If set up right, the president could soon conduct foreign policy without ever having to actually meet foreigners.

    It's not that President Bush doesn't like foreigners. He does, some of them anyway. He admires Tony Blair, Junichiro Koizumi and Ariel Sharon, as well as a few others. But even with them—the "good men"—he doesn't really have a genuine give-and-take. Most conversations are brief, scripted and perfunctory. The president rarely talks to any foreign leader to get his opinions or assessment of events. Churchill lived in the White House for days while he and Franklin Roosevelt jointly planned allied strategy. Such collaboration with a foreign leader is unthinkable today. Insider accounts of Tony Blair's involvement with the Iraq war suggest that Blair was, at best, informed of policy before it took effect.

    It is conventional wisdom that this lack of genuine communication with the world is a unique characteristic of George W. Bush. After all, Bill Clinton forged genuinely deep relations with his counterparts abroad. Though he traveled in equal grandeur, he showed much greater interest in the countries he visited. (In India he became a hero even though he had slapped sanctions on the country, an extraordinary case of personal diplomacy trumping policy.) George Bush Sr. had his famous Rolodex and dialed foreign leaders regularly to ask their views on things. Bush Jr. has set a new standard.

    Bush's tendencies seem to reflect a broader trend. America has developed an imperial style of diplomacy. There is much communication with foreign leaders, but it's a one-way street. Most leaders who are consulted are simply informed of U.S. policy. Senior American officials live in their own bubbles, rarely having any genuine interaction with their overseas counterparts, let alone other foreigners. "When we meet with American officials, they talk and we listen—we rarely disagree or speak frankly because they simply can't take it in," explained one senior foreign official who requested anonymity for fear of angering his U.S. counterparts.

    It is worth quoting at length from the recently published—and extremely well-written—memoirs of Chris Patten (who is ardently pro-American), recounting his experiences as Europe's commissioner for external affairs. "Even for a senior official dealing with the U.S. administration," he writes, "you are aware of your role as a tributary; however courteous your hosts you come as a subordinate bearing goodwill and hoping to depart with a blessing on your endeavours ... In the interests of the humble leadership to which President Bush rightly aspires, it would be useful for some of his aides to try to get into their own offices for a meeting with themselves some time!

    "Attending any conference abroad," Patten continues, "American cabinet officers arrive with the sort of entourage that would have done Darius proud. Hotels are commandeered; cities brought to a halt; innocent bystanders are barged into corners by thick-necked men with bits of plastic hanging out of their ears. It is not a spectacle that wins hearts and minds."

    Apart from the resentment that the imperial style produces, the aloof attitude means that American officials don't benefit from the experience and expertise of foreigners. The U.N. inspectors in Iraq were puzzled at how uninterested American officials were in talking to them—even though they had spent weeks combing through Iraq. Instead, U.S. officials, comfortably ensconced in Washington, gave them lectures on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. "I thought they would be interested in our firsthand reports on what those supposedly dual-use factories looked like," one of then told me (again remaining anonymous for fear of angering the administration). "But no, they explained to me what those factories were being used for."

    In handling postwar Iraq, senior American officials in Washington avoided any real conversations with U.N. officials who had been involved in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Mozambique and other such places.

    To foreigners, American officials increasingly seem clueless about the world they are supposed to be running. "There are two sets of conversations, one with Americans in the room and one without," says Kishore Mahbubani, formerly a senior diplomat for Singapore and now dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Because Americans live in a "cocoon," Mahbubani fears that they don't see the "sea change in attitudes towards America throughout the world."

    The imperial style has its virtues. It intimidates, allows for decisive action and can force countries to follow the lead. But it racks up costs. And it is particularly ill suited for the world we are entering. As other countries come into their own, economically and politically, they want to be listened to, not simply tolerated. They resent being lectured to by the United States. They are willing to be led, but in a very different style.

    When Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House, he certainly didn't have a reputation for being weak-kneed or soft. But he knew the value of reaching out to others who had different opinions. He would borrow from management jargon and speak of the need to "listen, learn, help and lead." In that order.

    Write the author at [email protected].
    © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  • #2
    A very well articulated article.

    If one reads the article pragmatically and without any emotional baggage, one will understand the reasons why quite a few Americans feel everyone is anti American.

    Actually, very few countries are really anti American. The point is well illustrated about Clinton and India in the article.

    Clinton had slapped sanctions against India and yet the same man, inspite of having come out as a sex deviate (India is quite conservative on public discusssion of personal sex!), became an instant hero in India because Clinton reached out and mingled with the common crowd. He broke the security ring and reached out to shake hands, talk and give a dose of American humour! The "Ugly American" became an "Universally loved American". The image of the proud American was proved wrong and it created doubts if indeed Americans are standoffish.

    In fact, Clinton was the prime mover of the Indian market and the Indian mindset opening up to the USA. It should be remembered that even at that time, there was a tilt towards Russia. Today, Russia is hardly on anyone's mind and Clinton has played a major role and so has Bush, to be fair.

    Though the state where I live is Communist ruled, the last US Cousel General mixed with the hoi polloi in addition to meeting the elite. He and his wife attended even common man's programmes and his wife learnt the Bharat Natyam and even performed on stage! The couple were the heart throb of the city, even though it is Communist ruled! Who the hell could believe the Communist propaganda that the Americans were proud or even racist!

    Therefore, the way one treats people is important.

    Likewise, if the USA is constantly criticised, then the American hackles very rightly would be up!



    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #3
      "There are two sets of conversations, one with Americans in the room and one without," says Kishore Mahbubani, formerly a senior diplomat for Singapore and now dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Because Americans live in a "cocoon," Mahbubani fears that they don't see the "sea change in attitudes towards America throughout the world."
      This really stuck a chord with me, APEC recently met and achieved nothing but platitudes, free trade blah blah, human rights blah blah, war against terrror blah blah, but two weeks later we have EAS, free trade deals being offered quicker than we can sign, Myanmar censured for human rights violations, NZ & Indonesia re-establishing military ties, things now indeed only seem to happen when America is out of the room.

      He broke the security ring and reached out to shake hands, talk and give a dose of American humour! The "Ugly American" became an "Universally loved American". The image of the proud American was proved wrong and it created doubts if indeed Americans are standoffish.
      He did the same thing here. Prior to his arrival Apache helicopters everywhere, special dispensation for his security to be armed, big lock down of Auckland central amidst much grumbling. Then he hops out of the car and goes walkabout, parties up with the local 'luminaries', wears an NZ made jacket out on the town and presto, crowds chanting his name.
      Last edited by Parihaka; 14 Dec 05,, 02:12.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #4
        I have to say that Clinton had that special Charisma. He was an awesome guy, I liked his attitude as a President. And like Ray said, He changed the attitude of Indians towards the USA in one trip to India. Very few men have that kind of capacity to influence people.
        "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

        "Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

        Sir Winston Churchill

        Comment


        • #5
          now THIS is something i never thought i'd see at the WAB, a bunch of posts praising clinton. what has this world come to??
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #6
            There was another article similar to this that I read a few weeks back during Bush's Asia trip. It pointed out that the President is much less interested in travel, while the First Lady takes every opportunity to soak in the local culture.

            However, I found the Blair remarks interesting - Blair seems to have been on board about Iraq for a long time, adamantly supporting Clinton on Operation Desert Fox. I just find the assertion that he was merely informed interesting, since that would have made it easy for him to distance the UK from US policy, especially given that his position has hurt him and his party.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by astralis
              now THIS is something i never thought i'd see at the WAB, a bunch of posts praising clinton. what has this world come to??
              I remember someone posting a while ago in the 'your a neo-con, no I'm not you lousy liberal' debates that Clinton was a great 'world' President and a lousy US President, and Bush vice versa.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment

              Working...
              X