WhirledView

Layers Upon Layers

by CKR

James made a nice observation about American exceptionalism last week that I expanded on at Washington Monthly.

What I didn’t say in the detail I was thinking it was that our American blinders eliminate far too much of what’s going on in the world. That goes for liberals as well as conservatives, Obama or Clinton supporters.

Here’s an example that bothers me every time it comes up in Doonesbury: Central Asia.

Central Asia is probably as far away from us as it’s possible to get, maybe with the exception of some of northern Siberia. That’s not just in miles, but culture as well. It’s further than Africa because Europe colonized Africa and layered onto it governmental and social practices we can recognize. It’s further than Antarctica because environmental organizations don’t sponsor luxury cruises there.

So Duke and company supervise a radio interview of Trff Bmzklfrpz, dictator of Berzerkistan, anti-semite and genocidaire.

Yes, I know, Doonesbury is satire. And there are indeed both corruption and despotism in Central Asia. But I wonder how much good this is doing for our understanding of what’s happening there. (And isn’t this a repeat? I think I read somewhere that Garry Trudeau is taking a leave of absence?)

Start with the dictator’s name. Yes, I know that Central Asian names are not usually Smith or Jones. But getting names right is a fundamental mark of respect. And then there’s the name of his country, which implies that its citizens share his, er, issues.

Turkmenistan is most likely Garry Trudeau’s model for Bezerkistan. Its former leader, Saparmurat Niyazov, insitituted a cult of personality that makes Stalin look like a small-town sheriff. Gold statues of himself, renaming the months and days for his family, all that. But he died in 2006 and was succeeded by Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. (C’mon, you can sound that out!) It was hard to know how Berdymukhammedov would rule; what a person does when working for someone like Niyazov does not reveal his opinions and preferences.

The Photo I Couldn't Post at Washington Monthly

Explanation here.

New Beginnings Needed for Engaging the World

By Patricia H. Kushlis

How much do you want to bet that whichever presidential candidate – particularly the two remaining on the Democratic side - wins in November, America’s standing in the world will improve. So much of what we see reflected in opinion poll after opinion poll in country after country reflects the unpopularity of the most unpopular president this country has inflicted on the world at least since the US claimed great power status years ago.

It’s impossible to turn a sow into a silk purse – as every grade school kid should know - and it’s not only W’s policies, but also his persona – the face that appears on the front of those policies – that contributes big time to this country’s huge image problem abroad.

But how long will the international grace period last for the new president? Six weeks? Six months? One year?

Seems to me it all depends on what the incumbent does and how he or she presents himself or herself and his or her policies abroad. The further the new president distances himself or herself from W-send-in-the-bombers-unilateralist and his fellow travelers, the better this country will be received abroad. At least for a little while.

A popular new face at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue might even be enough to send Osama Bin Laden scurrying to the back of his cave to rethink his strategy and Ahmadinejad to Qom to write a new script for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Now I’m not arguing that the US also doesn’t need to develop effective means of delivering a new president’s message. That’s part of the problem too. It’s just that all the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men cannot begin to repair this country’s image in the world until the king himself is changed.

As I read about the latest round of public diplomacy kurfluffering on Capitol Hill just before the Memorial Day Recess, I couldn’t help but wonder about the point of these legislative activities so late in this administration’s day.

Who cares . . .

whether James Glassman is finally approved by the Senate to replace his pal Karen Hughes as the new Czar of Public Diplomacy at the State Department? Won’t make an iota of difference. Seems to me that the steam is out of this administration. In fact, it’s in the last stages of senility.

There will be no big – or even small – initiatives unless, of course, the bomb-Iran-now-folk finally get their way and are allowed to set off one last large stink in the unstable Middle East. Otherwise new proposals and new policies will have to wait until a new team comes on board – but, a warning; the new president won’t have all day.

So what . . .

if Congressman Smith is pushing a bill on information operations/public diplomacy (take your choice) calling for any number of things most of which have been thought of before – including yet another study of a badly flawed operation – yawn – and shelved. I’ll bet this is foremost another example of way too much money available to a US military that still doesn’t know how to spend it. In this case, the sad thing is that the Pentagon needs to learn when it is time to bow out – and let the civilians take over. Guy Farmer’s recent article in “The Nevada Appeal” describes well his own experiences with this same problem in Granada years ago.

Ending the Revenge Cycle: A Film from Chad

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Nelson Mandela understood.

Acted upon, the all-too-natural hunger for revenge invites retaliation which, in turn, activates an endless cycle. Since the lex talionis is such a ghastly trap, truth and reconciliation councils were created to allow South Africans to wipe the political slate clean and participate, under new rules, in a post-apartheid society. It looked, for awhile, as if the revenge cycle had been stopped almost before it started. Unfortunately, Mandela’s successor Thabo Mbeke hasn’t been so adept at handling the very different challenges of his presidential tenure, with the result that immigrants from poorer African countries are now being scapegoated, even murdered, for economic difficulties they certainly did not cause. The townships, still poor, are erupting in violence again, and other South Africans are in a state of disbelief as they cope with electricity shortages. One hopes that Mbeke’s successor will not stoop to the thuggery and demagoguery by which Robert Mugabe has controlled an economically-devastated Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s high level henchmen obviously intend to perpetuate their grip on government even after the once-respected octogenarian can no longer serve as a front man for their ambitions.

Mugabe rose to power by decimating his post-independence opposition. Not the whites. A political faction dominated by another tribe. Then, for fear of retribution, he had to keep sitting on them. One hopes that when Mugabe and those he has nurtured are, eventually, inevitably, replaced, the new regime will take a wiser course. One hopes against hope that the upcoming rerun of presidential elections in Zimbabwe will be overseen by outside electoral experts so that the Zimbabwe workers being driven out of South Africa will be able to participate, without fear, in the rehabilitation of their ruined country. For that to happen in a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe there will have to be a lot of forgiveness and political restraint.

This is a long introduction to a fine film made in Chad, but it’s an appropriate introduction because the film indicates that Nelson Mandela is far from the only African dedicated to promoting an end to ugly cycles of murder and revenge. Forgiveness is difficult, but possible.

Here’s where the story in Daratt, the Dry Season begins: the civil war in Chad is over, but young Nassara’s blind grandfather is outraged by the news that all participants in the bloodbath will be granted amnesty. He tells the young man that he must go to the capital Ndjemena, find his father’s killer and avenge the family by doing away with him. The old man gives his grandson a hand gun for the job and says that he will be waiting for a report of success under a certain tree in the desert some distance from their village. The boy sets off to do his duty. We don’t realize it at the time, but the symbolism is clear: a blind old anachronism anchors himself to a barely surviving, solitary tree in the desert.

John McCain on Nuclear Nonproliferation

by CKR

John McCain seems to have broken with President Bush today on several aspects of his nonproliferation policy.

He is more favorable to international treaties, for starters. He recognizes that the United States and Russia, with the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, must take the lead in eliminating those weapons.

The United States cannot and will not stop the spread of nuclear weapons by unilateral action. We must lead concerted and persistent multilateral efforts. As powerful as we are, America's ability to defend ourselves and our allies against the threat of nuclear attack depends on our ability to encourage effective international cooperation. We must strengthen the accords and institutions that make such cooperation possible.

However, he is vague about the treaties. He seems to say that we must work with Russia to extend the START treaty, but his words are weaker than that, and he doesn’t mention that START is used to verify the Moscow Treaty, which he doesn’t mention at all, although he does say he would like “a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.” Not clear whether those reductions would be below the Moscow Treaty’s 2200. We should “move quickly with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty” and “seriously consider Russia's recent proposal” to expand the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to include other countries in banning these missiles. He is also willing to talk to China on strategic and nuclear issues, hopefully bringing them into a warhead-reduction regime.

Tuesday Bird Blogging

by CKR

Claret-cup hedgehogs from a coming attraction a couple of weeks back.

The ravens seem to be gone, but I haven't put out those rich blocks of seed that contain pecans and dried cranberries yet. Every time I think about doing so, I see a raven making a low pass over the feeder area.

I do have quite a few doves, mostly the mourning sort. I thought I saw one the other day with a white edge along its wing, although the rest of it was clearly a mourning dove. I've been wondering if they can interbreed with the white-winged doves.

A pair of black-headed grosbeaks (Pheucticus melanocephalus) are regular customers. This is the female.

The hummingbird feeders are on the other side of the house. At least one broad-tailed hummingbird is a regular. A couple of weeks ago, a female Bullock's oriole (Icterus bullockii) was checking the hummingbird feeders out. Orioles like sugar water, too, and the stores sell a larger version of hummingbird feeders for them. I quickly put some orange halves into the trees, but I haven't seen her since. What I did see, just the other day, was a male western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), who also likes fruit. So I went out to renew the oranges. They were pretty well pecked-at, which means that just because I'm not seeing the birds doesn't mean they're not there.

They have a new admirer, too, one that I'm not wild about. A young gray cat was watching the feeder the other day. He's clearly interested in the lizards too. Yesterday I saw him with something in his mouth. It was small, but now that I think about it, it may have been a mouse, which would be okay with me.

A few nights back, there was quite a ruckus. Apparently two families, one of three birds and the other of two, were having something of a disagreement. This was one of them. It looks like a Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), but it's hard to be sure from this distance. I haven't seen them before or since.

Favoritism-in-the-Ranks Saga Continues at State

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Here we go again.

Yes, there is another way to become a US Ambassador besides signing on as a state finance campaign chairman for the Ds or Rs. The political appointments route to the deepest purple of plum book assignments, after all, only opens 35 percent of Ambassadorships to political party money handlers or other party bigwigs who bet on the right candidate during election season.

The other 60-65 percent of Ambassadorial appointees come from the ranks of the career Foreign Service. This part of the system, at least, supposedly operates on merit – and to some extent it still does. Nevertheless, in Condi Rice’s State Department, there’s a lot more (or less, in this case) than merit that meets the eye.

As I wrote on WhirledView on February 26, 2008, favoritism was alive and well for the approximately 65 percent of U.S. Ambassadorial appointments that went to career Foreign Service Officers between 2006 and late February 2008. State’s assignments and promotion system has never been particularly fair - despite a few protestations to the contrary – but it seems to have worsened perceptibly under the current administration’s approach to managing, or mismanaging, the Department.

Here’s what my research then unearthed: “too high a percentage of Senior Foreign Service Officers who held or hold positions in Human Resources were or are being nominated for Ambassadorial appointments among all those eligible to be considered for them. What is even more striking is that none of those nominated for Ambassadorships from positions in Human Resources between 2006-2008 had served in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 – or for that matter had ever served in Iraq. Period."

Since I wrote in that February 26, 2008 post entitled “Why the AFSA Survey is Right: Favoritism Charge Is Real,” the State Department has made 19 additional Ambassadorial nominations from among its career ranks.

The skewed picture remains the same.

Of the 19 new Ambassadorial nominees only one has served in Iraq; Another left Afghanistan last year. However, continuing the trend I noted in my first post, two of the others work in Human Resources – e.g. Personnel -- and (surprise, surprise) neither of them have Iraq or Afghan experience.

The numbers I published in February showed that at least 14 percent of all Ambassadorial assignments had gone to career officers who had previously served in Iraq versus 11 percent who came from Human Resources. This time around – albeit using a much smaller sample and including Afghanistan – the tally is 10.5 percent for the Iraq and Afghanistan vets -- exactly equal to the 10.5 percent coming out of HR.

Think about how this appears.

There are, after all, far more senior officer positions in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Human Resources. If I knew those numbers for sure, I’d post them but I can only guess the dimensions.

AFSA: aren’t these some of the statistics you should be prying out of State?

Does anyone know? Is the number four times as many? Five times as many? Not only are there far more senior Foreign Service Officer positions at these two Embassies – Iraq is now the largest US Embassy in the world – and on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams than in Human Resources, but far more officers will have served in these war zones because the assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan last one year. Whereas State Human Resources positions are usually held by the same individual for two or three years.

The numbers I posted on February 26 should have set off alarm bells at the State Department’s highest levels of management, at the American Foreign Service Association, in White House personnel, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Alas, the silence from the above quarters is deafening.

To top it all off, one of this year’s HR Ambassadorial appointees has, in her role as Deputy DG, been sending out cables for the past two years imploring others to put their lives on the line and “volunteer” for Iraq or Afghanistan, but has herself never served in either country. She instead, will shuffle off to Ecuador as US Ambassador.

Just in case the connection is missed between getting cushy jobs, ducking service in Iraq and serving in HR, another recent HR nominee happily took along her boss, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, to her Senate confirmation hearing. It’s right there in her testimony.

One Person Can make Make a Difference

by CKR

Glenn Kessler today tells us about one of them: Christopher Hill, who has been in charge of the negotiations with North Korea. Hill has managed to persuade North Korea to begin decommissioning its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon and to make its records of plutonium production available.

Somehow, Hill managed to persuade Condoleezza Rice and George Bush to let him run the negotiations his way. And he made it work.

But Jeffrey Lewis tells us that the rumor mill says that Hill will be leaving his position “any day now.” Lewis speculates that Hill is being pushed out by the Cheney faction. That’s entirely possible. I’d add another factor.

Through deft use of public appearances and the news media, Hill also has become an international figure in his own right. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon last year hailed him as a "diplomat par excellence" whose "persistence and skillful negotiation have brought us close, I believe, to resolving this last legacy of the Cold War." Along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Aga Khan, Hill is even a finalist for Britain’s prestigious Chatham House Prize -- given to the statesman who has had the greatest impact on international relations -- for keeping the North Korean "talks alive and viable, against seemingly impossible odds," including the "complex internal politics of Washington."

Two things are wrong here, from the point of view of Hill’s bosses and the broader bureaucracy. One is that he’s doing a good job where the earlier application of the conventional wisdom (conventional within the administration, that is) failed. The other is that he is getting credit for it from outside.

It doesn’t matter that he really is doing a good job. It does matter that others in his organization, and perhaps (even worse), his bosses have their noses out of joint.

I’m hoping that someone (Condi? The Prez?) will take things in hand, keep Hill on, and shut down the others. We need more diplomats like Hill. And keeping him on would signal to others in the State Department that this is how they should do their jobs.

But the combination of political and bureaucratic knives can be pretty deadly. It wouldn’t be the first time.