State of Schizophrenia?
By Michael Flynn & Jim Lobe
Over the past year and a half, the State Department has reemerged as the preeminent force in U.S. foreign relations, one that on the surface seems capable of challenging the aggressive, go-it-alone politics of both the Pentagon and of the office of the vice president. Viewed by many observers as a sign of President George W. Bush's second-term chastening, the revival of State has nonetheless been accompanied by a number of contradictory impulses, raising questions about the department's ability—or willingness—to champion diplomacy in the face of a loud campaign by neoconservatives and hawks for further intervention in the Middle East as the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel intensifies. Read article.
State Department Profiles:
Condoleezza Rice
Will the real Ms. Rice please stand up? The secretary of state embodies the contradictory diplomacy of President Bush's second term.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1325
Office of Iranian Affairs
Does the State Department's creation of an Office of Iranian Affairs signal that hawks are gearing up to push for an Iraq-style intervention?
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3312
John Bolton
Despite opposition from Democrats and many U.S. allies, President Bush wants the Senate to quickly confirm his nominee to the United Nations.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/972
Elizabeth Cheney
Like father, like daughter. At State, the VP's daughter has been linked with efforts to promote regime change in the Middle East.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3376
Randall Fort
Some worry that Randall Fort, the man slated to lead State's intelligence outfit, might derail the bureau from its independent habits, like being one of the few government intel agencies that criticized the intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq War.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3355
Paula Dobriansky
The undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs is a long-time supporter of a passel of neoconservative and hardline policy outfits, including the Project for the New American Century and the Hudson Institute.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1120
Letters & Comments
Re: “Bolton: Israel's Man at the UN,” by Tom Barry, IRC Commentary, July 26, 2006
http://www.irc-online.org/content/3388
“A Second Holocaust?”
Tom Barry's article seems to assume that support of Israel is improper. I find it reprehensible to assume that the Jewish state has no right to defend itself, and that those who support this right must be wrong. It is a sign of bias that Barry nowhere feels the need to explain that the U.S. government's policy on Israel is wrong. It is a sign of ignorance that he assumes that Bolton is carrying out a policy on Israel that is independent of the U.S. government. When did praise from Jews and from Israel become evidence of error, or a badge of shame? The Israelis merely want to live in peace, and scrupulously avoid harming enemy civilians. Israel's enemies seek mass Israeli civilian death, and are the main cause of their own civilian deaths. Those who undermine Israel's defense pave the way for the success of its enemies—and for a second holocaust.
—Joel P. Trachtman, Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Tom Barry responds:
The writer is correct that I make a number of unstated assumptions in my article. Yes, I assume that it is improper for the U.S. government to support Israel's bombing campaign in Lebanon. Yes, I think it is wrong to consider Israel's military intervention in the region as self-defense. I see it the same way Ambassador Bolton and Secretary of State Rice do—as part of the U.S. government's and Israel's reckless strategy to create a “new Middle East.” I assumed that it wasn't necessary to explicitly condemn this intervention and strategy because the entire world, apart from Israel and the U.S. government, is expressing outrage. I accept that I am not entirely clear who is the dog and who the tail, the U.S. government or Israel. What is clear is that Ambassador Bolton and many of his colleagues in the administration have expressly shown their belief that U.S. national interests are linked closely to those of Israel, an assumption that I don't share. Praise for policies that erode international law and the United Nations—and cause tremendous destruction and death—is indeed “a badge of shame,” regardless of who is expressing it.
