The diplomacy of diplomacy

---

See the Sol Sanders Archive By Sol Sanders SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

There used to be something around Washington called Òthe Powell DoctrineÓ, named for a Chief of the Joint Staff who warned against initiating combat without Òoverwhelming forceÓ. It was one reason the 1981 Gulf War took so long to rev up. Pretty much a thing of the past, we are now into the era of ÒtransformationÓ ø introduction of high tech, mobile weaponry, substituting electronic smarts for heavy armor. Specialized units flitting around the world from one Òlily padÓ ø a modest logistics jump off ø to another would pursue American national interest. Advocates of the new concept, beaten to a bloody pulp by pundits in the Iraq War's early days, appear to have been vindicated

Now, in a blunt, unusually tough-talking interview with The Washington Times in late February, the same Gen. Powell in diplomatic pinstripes defended his new role ø and his State Department troops ø against accusations of disloyalty to the White House. He made a good case. But it was a case for the old, heavy armored diplomacy. In more than one argument, he inferentially acknowledged his own personality won the day, not his State soldiers' old style machinations. A case in point: Pakistan's turnaround after 9/11 when it was soldier to soldier. Powell to Gen.-President Pervez Musharraf: Powell ÒundiplomaticallyÓ pointing out what would result for Pakistan if the swamp of the Al Qaida and the Taliban were not drained in Afghanistan with Islamabad's cooperation.

Just as there is debate about whether the U.S. military ø just biting off a new chunk in Haiti ø is not overstretched, one has to wonder about the reach of U.S. diplomats. Unfortunately, a Clinton decade's inheritances is a flawed policy of reliance on ÒmultilateralismÓ as the mantra which would solve all threats in the jungle out there. The unspoken premise was if we turned problems over to the international institutions, our purposes would be accomplished. Alas! the Democrat nominee for President seems to be mouthing the same clichŽ. What wasn't acknowledged was the life supply of multilateral institutions is U.S. resources, which also necessitate American initiatives and direction. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, good examples, at the heart of so much cajoling of ÒunderdevelopedÓ countries to pick up their economic britches, cannot move without Washington's heavy lifting . But they have rarely got U.S. attention except in crises.

Just as we have to tailor our military commitments to our resources [and there appears little doubt a major increase is on the agenda of the next president whether he likes it or not], we need to look at our diplomatic resources. The United Nations has turned into a sump of anti-Americanism and corruption for the very good reason we have not ø as we did throughout its early decadesø made it an object of U.S. tender loving care. There used to be a time when an American, acting quite rightly as an honorable international civil servant, was in the secretary-general's entourage, acutely aware of directions the bloated democracy on the East River was moving. That no longer seems the case ø otherwise the Secretary would not have been repeatedly ambushed by the Quai d'Orsay and its whole franocophoneyland UN claque. A has-been France repeatedly leverages the international organizations in its pursuit of gloire.

There is a good deal of self congratulation about French and American collaboration in the current Haitian crisis. But it may be premature. Rumors from Paris are Regis Debray, a French Latin American expert leftover from the 60s, a pal of Che Guevara's, is calling Paris'shots. If so, we could end up with a new Hatian regime allied to the growing anti-American axis of Habana-Caracas-Brazilia-Buenos Aires.

Hopefully Powell's forthright interview is the beginning of a debate about American diplomacy ø unfortunately to be postponed[like so many other things] while we get through a hot political summer. But just as it was time for ÒtransformationÓ of old-style military [still obviously a long way to go], it is time for an intensive look at American diplomacy. The utter failure of Òpublic diplomacyÓ ø efforts to mould public opinion in the Arab/Moslem world ø is a case in point. What a scandal it took until this February to mount a satellite Arab-language TV counter to the hate mongering channels using the U.S. as a whipping boy! Is it time, again, to raise that old argument over a propaganda agency outside the State Department's purview to tackle espousal of reform in the Middle East ø not a choice but a necessity after 9/11?

It may also be time to debate diplomatic priorities. The very mention Washington would be ready to play broker in the Mainland-Taiwan muddle ø after the sorry history of decades of ÒmediationÓ that helped the Communist to victory in the civil war ø makes it clear such a debate is already late.