I understand the importance of faith to many Americans. My faith is important to me and has directly influenced decisions I have made in business and politics throughout my career. To that end, I feel that there are certain instances where it is appropriate to consider a political candidate’s religious beliefs. First, a candidate’s faith should come into play when those beliefs dictate his/her position on certain political issues i.e. abortion, separation of church and state, etc. And second, Americans need to know that nothing in their president’s personal life, including faith, will conflict with his/her loyalty to the office. These, however, are the exceptions; how a candidate chooses to worship is, in all other instances, beyond the purview of the platform. This should be the time that the debate focuses on specific issues and gives America a clear understanding of how any person who seeks the office of president would make difficult and complex judgments.

Howard Baker used to say that it was critical for a senator to have their own internal moral compass. The decisions that need to be made on a daily basis by the President of the United States are often difficult, are often complicated and very seldom have a single correct answer. It is important for the American people to understand how our next president comes to those decisions and to have confidence in that process. Clearly Jack Kennedy felt a similar need to deal with his personal religious beliefs publicly. His decision was understandable then and Romney’s decision is understandable now. But it is not the quintessential issue.

I realize that it is impossible to separate one’s religious beliefs from the personal moral framework. But the question has always been whether or not those frameworks can be universalized enough to gain the support of those who do not consider themselves of the same faith. And right now many of us are asking: Can Romney extrapolate his Mormon values to a universal moral framework that will put non-Mormons at ease? But I think the bigger question is: Should he have to? Is there really a difference in our approach to weapons of mass destruction that is singularly Mormon, Catholic, or Evangelical? I have to believe that there is a universal framework consistent throughout all religious faiths that embody similar principles on this and other decisions the president would make. As constituents, we should recognize this and move on. Candidates should be held accountable for what they believe, not why they believe it.

No related posts.

I realize, of course, that the State Department could not have legally prevented the head of state from keeping his appointment at Columbia, so it’s hard to argue that its doing so was an effort at foreign policy. But I also accept that Cabinet members, and their departments, are not the only agents for diplomacy this country has to offer. Enter Lee Bollinger – 19^th President of Columbia University. Regardless of whether any of us are ultimately for or against the university’s invitation, I think it constituted as much an act of diplomacy as academia. And it effectively highlighted what is a fine line in US foreign relations: engagement vs. compromise.

All too often the American public confuses ‘engagement’ with ‘compromise’ in the realm of diplomacy. That’s why so many of us grow impatient with diplomacy when dealing with states like Iran and North Korea, viewing it as an impracticality, weakness, or courtesy before real progress is made through ultimatums, sanctions and even force. Yet real progress can be made through engagement, and compromise need not occur. For example, once Ahmadinejad was to appear at Columbia, the focus, from a diplomacy perspective, was on how the university and its head administrator were going to handle the very pubic side of engagement. To the president’s personal credit, he showed strong opposition to the speaker while the assembled student body and faculty openly rebuked his policies. This reflected the ability for Americans to face off with their opponents, both sides debating freely, without being persuaded to compromise values by the rhetoric of a despot.

Several questions remain in my view, but I will end by only by posing two of them. First, this event underscores the necessity for carefully managing engagement so that the right signals are sent both to governmental institutions and the public when the forum is open. In that light, what signals were sent by Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad, Bollinger’s introduction of the visitor and the crowd’s reaction? Second, of the different audiences around the world, but specifically in Iran, for whom do these signals have the most import? In my mind, the most significant audience was comprised mainly of the younger generation in Iran who may have had access to the event. I am hopeful that a young Iranian would gain an appreciation for our tolerance of divergent views, but at the same time be able to see how truly off the mark their president’s views are, as evidenced by the reaction of their counterparts in the US.

This event, and Columbia’s engagement on the world stage, is certainly not new. In fact, the presence of the United Nations in New York City, and more recently, the heightened visibility of the leaders in many countries attending its assembly have given rise to a whole series of independent presentations whose audience is not the UN itself, but the US, its people, and the global community in general. With that in mind, American institutions and organizations need to be aware of the role that they play, intentionally or inadvertently, on the stage of foreign diplomacy.

I end this entry as I began – from the eyes of a father. I spoke with my daughter late Monday night after all had quieted down at the campus. I could hear in her voice the excitement resulting from her participation, albeit indirect, in such an internationally engaging event. It made we wonder whether her peers in Tehran would ever be encouraged, or even allowed, to express what would be considered such divergent views. In today’s Iran I do not believe that to be the case. But as the future leaders and thinkers of their country, it is precisely those views that will weaken their president and open the door for diplomacy.

No related posts.

With so much happening in Iraq, and so much contingent upon the new government’s success, it is difficult to take our eyes off the country to focus on other regional issues.  However, while a stable Iraq is key to a stable Middle East, it is not the only key.  There are other regional issues that could continue adding to instability if left unattended to.  Of course, I haven’t said anything that we don’t know.  But with so many things involved in critical government, this is easier said than done.  Say what you will about the Bush administration, but he has managed to keep his bases covered (this isn’t a baseball blog either), providing a lot of focus on Iraq, but not at the expense of other important regional issues.

One of these issues, as we all know, is the seemingly indefinite conflict between Palestine and Israel.  And most of us will re-call that in “the good ol’ days” before Iraq, THIS was the issue that we were all worried about; THIS was the fulcrum for stability in the Middle East. 

In that context, I was pleased on Monday morning when I read that Secretary Rice had persuaded leaders on both sides to agree in principle to re-convene discussions on the peace process.  Her plan to “just really sit and talk about the issues” causes a bit of concern.  But I am hopeful, nonetheless, that tangible progress will occur.

Were I in a position to do so, I would offer some advice to our top diplomat.  US representatives must avoid thinking about solving the Palestine issue as a means to an end, i.e. merely a way to solve a larger problem.  For purposes of these negotiations the Palestine/Israeli relationship must be the end-game.  By this, I do not mean that we cannot conduct these meetings with US interests in mind.  But I do mean that by working to view the issues through the eyes of Palestine and, conversely, Israel, the US has much to gain.  Aiding these parties through this process will do more for US positioning in the region than we could ever do by attempting to steer the outcome for our benefit at the expense of Palestine or Israel.  

One hopes that as the Iraq issue dissipates, there might be a changing view in the Arab world surrounding the US’ involvement in the peace process.  And when all is said and done, I hope that the outcome will have been encouraged in bipartisan fashion.  Whatever disagreements people have with the Iraq policy, if they come to the belief that there is benefit in this engagement, they need to support the overall context of these discussions.
 

No related posts.

The State Department finds itself taking the lead on a number of issues these days.  Iraq tops the list, followed by Iran and North Korea.  In South America, much of our diplomatic efforts are being spent on preventing Venezuela from taking the available seat on the Security Council.  And, though diplomatic efforts with Israel and its Arab neighbors have calmed down somewhat since the beginning of September, violence still threatens the region and, when it is necessary, the US will again take the lead. 

With so much on the agenda, the US has found it challenging to expend the time and resources that the Darfur Crisis deserves.  This is why it is so important for other countries to get more involved in the negotiations process.  President Bush has by no means forgotten Darfur, but with so many large-scale security threats around the world with which the US is so heavily involved, resolution of Darfur requires much more attention by other countries; namely Russia and China. 

Russia is in a unique position to exert leverage on the situation since it was recently asked by Sudan to supply a large consignment of arms and military craft, with training, on credit.  This was not exactly an invitation to send peacekeeping troops, but it certainly opens the door for negotiation to that end, if Russia plays its cards right.  And it is certainly more involvement than has been requested of the US or any other western country.  While I clearly do not think that Russia should comply, I do think they have an opportunity to leverage their apparent good relationship with Sudan to speed up progress.

China also has a great amount of leverage as the third-largest trade partner with African countries.  It also supplies arms to Sudan.  The potential impact of Chinese diplomatic efforts was recently manifested when it brokered a deal with North Korea, encouraging Pyongyang to return to Six-party talks.  China may not have as close a relationship with Sudan as with North Korea, but I personally see their success with Korean diplomacy as a much more difficult feat than it would be to convince Khartoum to allow a UN peacekeeping force.  Diplomatic capabilities aside, one would think that with all China has been investing in Africa since 2005, it would be in their own interest to bring stability to the region.  In fact, if China continues to avoid aggressive diplomatic involvement, in five years they will be paying the price…literally. 

With these thoughts in mind, PSA will begin to explore ways to advocate a more international approach to Darfur.  This is not to say that America is off the hook – on the contrary, in fact.  State must continue to put pressure on al-Bashir to address the issues of genocide and displacement in his country.  But, along with an increasing number of international concerns, America cannot walk this road alone.
    

No related posts.

There were many unfortunate consequences of the scandal, individually and politically.  Among the latter, and perhaps overshadowed by other surrounding issues, was that the story diverted Washington’s attention (not the least of which was the White House’s) from pressing Foreign Policy concerns.  This distraction occurred in two different ways.  First, it took up an incredible amount of time and resources.  Instead of meeting with foreign policy officials, the President was meeting with lawyers.  Instead of taking a delegation to Eastern Europe, he was taking the witness stand.  You get the point.  Second is that the events drove the wedge been Democrats and Republicans even deeper into the aisle.  The word “Liberal” was to “Immorality” as “Conservative” was to “Witch Hunt.”  And of course, we all member speculation about whether the White House was “wagging the dog.”

Almost a decade later, the circle of life on Capitol Hill has come…well, full-circle, landing this time in the office of Congressman Foley.  In all fairness, it isn’t his fault that Washington is still waking up to the sound of a Republican alarm clock with an Abramoff-DeLay hangover.  But while recent Republican scandals have all but demanded skepticism and mistrust from fellow Republicans and Democrats alike, Foley’s behavior has no excuses and the public deserves to know.

So, here we are again:  a capital divided by mistrust and counter-attacks at a time when we need to be united.  I admit that Foley’s resignation will not have nearly the affect on our foreign policy as, say, Clinton’s investigation did (and removal would have).  But that’s not the point.  It still poses a substantial distraction, particularly with elections only a month away, that draws attention from political matters that are quite frankly more important.  I predict that on the upcoming months’ campaign trails, we’ll here as much about House Pages as we will about Immigration or Nuclear Non-proliferation.  While I can’t blame incumbents or prospectives for trying to win their races, it is disconcerting for me to see where the focus is.

Ironically, Capitol Hill is not the only forum to come full circle from the Clinton Administration; some of the same issues our leaders faced then still haunt us today.  Towards the end of Clinton’s first term he made significant headway with North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation negotiations.  At the time, those talks seemed in many ways successful and progressive, but they also represent a failed opportunity to bring total security to the region; North Korea clearly never really abandoned their goals.  The same could be said, I think, of Clinton’s dealings with Israel and Palestine –  he skillfully crafted the Oslo Accord early on in his presidency, as he did the Wye River Memorandum in his second term.  But both ultimately failed, arguably due to a lack of attention and diplomacy at critical times.  I cannot and do not put the blame for our current lack of security in Asia and the Middle East squarely on President Clinton.  I simply point out that the man was a skilled negotiator and had the resources to effectuate progress.  Yet his second term was mired by personal distractions and a plummeting image that, perhaps without such, he might have been able to see his efforts in foreign diplomacy through to a more complete and permanent resolution.

Today our nation’s Capitol faces some of the same issues at home and abroad.  We are still haunted by North Korea and the Middle East, and our scandals have moved from the White House to Cannon.  Congress has an enormous responsibility right now, as always, to influence foreign policy both directly (through its committees and caucuses) and indirectly (with the purse and the public).  Let Foley be prosecuted and let us move on.  Now is the time for our President, along with Majority and Minority leaders to reign in the focus on more urgent matters that should be permeating our halls.  We cannot afford anymore missed opportunities.          

No related posts.

It is obvious that the events of September 11, 2001 forced the Administration to be immediately reactive to the situation, and no one can fault us for that.  However, since that day we have continued as principally a reactionary force in the Middle East, particularly in our reconstructive efforts in Iraq.  Today, as we approach the 5th anniversary of 9/11 and find ourselves on a threatening front, it seems vital to US interests and the interests of that region to be increasingly proactive.  Victory and success, as I would define them in this context, are all but impossible from a reactive position.

Successive administrations have found political will thwarted again and again with Iran, and now we find ourselves facing that issue once more.  However, on this occasion the Administration has been more forward-thinking in its approach as it has sought to allow other countries to take the diplomatic lead and to maintain as much as possible within the context of the United Nations.  This has led to headway in what would otherwise be a stalemate between East and West.  In some ways, the recent activity of Iran and its engagement with Hezbollah may even reflect the ultimate frustration of the Iranian government as it seeks to derail not only a US initiative, but also a multi-national one. 

For the moment there is quite a debate as to what the true relationship is between Iran and Hezbollah, but there is no debate that it is significant.  Nor is there any question in my mind that US interests and the interests of many of our allies, including our moderate Islamic allies, are not best served by a strong military attack against Hezbollah.  That is why we cannot afford to back off of the diplomatic course with either Hezbollah or Iran.  And, not surprisingly, success with the former will largely contribute to success with the latter.  As we are seen by the rest of the Middle East as objective and fair in negotiating with Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel, we will find ourselves with more bargaining chips for Iran.  In short, we will not be, in the Iranians’ eyes, a lone western power trying to stay afloat in a tide of angst, but an objective state that represents the interests of the regional and international communities.

The bottom line is that as we survey the Middle East and look at our substantial engagements in such a multi-faceted way, we need desperately to find diplomatic tools that seek to diffuse the current bloodshed, give confidence to the sensible political actors in a balanced way, and propel neutral mediation.  I echo the call from Senator Hagel (R-NE) for the Administration to not sacrifice our ties with the rest of the region for the sake of Israel.  The Senator points out that, “it is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.”  He goes on to recommend that President Bush send a special envoy to Lebanon to negotiate a resolution before the damage, political and collateral, is irreparable.

As diplomatic efforts help resolve the situation in Lebanon, I believe that we will find success with Iran as well.  But we must not change our course of diplomacy.  As Senator Hagel proclaims, this process can only begin with open and unconditional dialogue, first with Iran and then with Syria.  This is the kind of proactive step that the US must take, followed by a consistent resort to diplomacy, if there is to be any chance of bringing order and peace to the Middle East.

No related posts.

I understand that withdrawing funds is not exactly tantamount to withdrawing support.  But the distinction is one of degree, not one of type.  Withdrawing funds will lead to a schism between the US and other members of the Security Council, perhaps with the exception of the UK.  Countries who would be our diplomatic allies increasingly see us as a hypocritical state that expects everyone to play by the rules, except when we don’t want to.  While this isn’t a totally fair perception, it isn’t exactly unfair either.  Withdrawing funds, as opposed to working with the Secretary General and other delegates to effectuate change, would only exacerbate this view and further isolate the US.        

I understand, of course, that the US never intends to fully give up on diplomacy as a principle.  But to continue diplomatic efforts without the support of the United Nations is an uphill battle.  This is evident as the US struggles to negotiate with North Korea without strong UN involvement; demanding diplomacy only through six party talks and ready to enforce sanctions when necessary.  North Korea’s response has been…well…unresponsive.  What happens if Kim Jong Il decides to test another missile?  Will they negotiate then?  My guess is they won’t, in which case the US would pursue economic sanctions.  But to have any real effect, sanctions would need to be UN-backed.  And that’s not likely to happen if we withdraw funds.

On the other hand, a direct UN role in Pyongyang would be much more fruitful, and here’s why.  The US has plenty of ground to gain with North Korea, who feels betrayed after agreeing in principle to give up their WMDs last fall, only to be sanctioned by the US.  This is undoubtedly why US efforts have failed thus far.  And North Korea may even see Japan and South Korea as mere fronts for US-initiated policy.  Yet allowing an objective United Nations committee to take the lead on negotiations would immediately disarm any pre-conceived notions North Korea may have about the involvement of US foreign policy.  Does that mean that North Korea suddenly becomes open-minded with UN involvement?  No.  But it would result in a less-guarded Korean dictator who feels like he was fooled once and won’t let it happen again.

But the real problem isn’t with North Korea, or even Iran.  Rather, it’s with all of the would-be North Koreas and Irans that the US will eventually engage in similar negotiations.  It only makes sense to confront these actors with as much help and support as we can garner.  It is in our best interest to be building bridges with the international community right now, not burning them.

No related posts.

The Lugar-Obama Bill is founded in a previous bi-partisan effort between Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar in 1991 (Nunn-Lugar Act), which initiated the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.  That program’s focus was to provide aid to the former Soviet Union to dismantle its enormous stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The Lugar-Obama Act, passed by the Senate on May 23, 2006, was essentially born out of The Nunn-Lugar Act in that it continues to seek a working relationship with foreign countries to reduce their weapons stockpiles.  The latest act has two branches, which focus on the more grassroots threat of conventional weapons (i.e. anti-aircraft missiles, etc.), as well as locating these weapons and confiscating them from the likes of terrorists and black market dealers before they can be used against US troops and allies, or other peacekeeping forces.

This initiative undoubtedly represents a step in the right direction and I applaud the bill’s authors for their vision of the need for preemptive action.  The recent discussions in Washington over use of the term ‘preemption’ have generally focused on preemptive military action.  However, the Lugar-Obama bill reflects a type of preemptive diplomacy, which is another channel for a positive national security landscape.  In that context, I do think that preemptive action seems appropriate and efficient in the context of weapons stockpiles. 

This legislation still reflects a work in progress where there is an increasing need to separate weapons from those that seek to use them in a harmful way, and to do so in the most inclusive possible fashion.  Almost every country has a vested interest in dealing effectively with terrorism.  Unfortunately, the countries with the greatest need in this regard are also the countries that have been less willing to become involved with the US in past initiatives.  My hope, then, is that this act represents a bridge to those countries upon which we might cooperatively seek action in advance of immediate threat or potential use. 

No related posts.

Bipartisanship.  It’s a word that gets tossed around loosely inside the thick walls of Dirksen and Longworth.  Almost universally, its usage is meant to appeal to the silent majority of our country; the masses that would see our leaders place the issues ahead of party lines.  At no time in recent history has bipartisan effort been more difficult and scarcer, and at the same time, rarely has it been so important.  Yet, in spite of the growing need for true and uniting leadership to emerge from Capitol Hill, we must be conscious enough of why we demand bipartisan efforts to reject the recent political phenomenon that occurred during the DP World deal:  bipartisanship for its own sake.

The events surrounding the attempt of Dubai Ports World to obtain ownership of several major US ports need no review.  From a political perspective, the only point I want to raise is how quickly and seamlessly Democrats and Republicans banned together to strike down an otherwise legitimate business deal.  Contrary to what some believe, this movement did nothing to indicate that Washington is still capable of interjecting a thoughtful, factual debate on foreign policy or any other issue.  Rather, it only served to reflect the very worst in bipartisan consensus in that it lowered the threshold of leadership to the point that both parties sought merely to respond to a base protectionist view.

Back, now, to the why.  With bipartisanship – I mean true bipartisanship – our country has an unlimited, unfiltered source of ideas from which to choose the best and brightest.  But if we get too caught up in party lines, the number of ideas and opinions starts to diminish until we’re back down to two:  Dems vs Reps. The problem with bipartisanship for its own sake is that it results in a scenario much closer to the latter than the former.  In the paradigm of Dubai ports, the party lines were less visible, but not to facilitate meaningful debate (excepting the efforts of the Administration and a few senators) and diverse opinions.  Rather, so many of the politicos used bipartisan efforts as a bandwagon to carry them as far from the President as possible.  In other words, they only wanted to be bipartisan because that looked better to the American public than what was really happening.  This preempted much of the discussion on important related issues like Dubai’s potential role in the War on Terror, or the US’s military presence in the Middle East (including countries other than Iraq).  

Washington politicians now find themselves with something they may never see again…a second chance.  A UAE company named Dubai International Capital is in the process of purchasing a British Defense group with US security connections.  Sound familiar?  It should.  The deal went through a 45-day review by CFIUS, after which President Bush signed off on it.  Thus far, there has been little outcry from either side of the aisle.  My hope is that this reflects the true bipartisan spirit – one that sets a stage for Democrats and Republicans to discuss the important issues of foreign investment in the US, and the inevitable repercussions manifested in US investment abroad.   

No related posts.