I can’t tell which is worse — the Bush administration’s diplomatic skills before the war Iraq or after it.
To be sure, they were an embarrassment before our invasion began. We bullied our friends, threatened our neighbors, alienated our allies, and told the world we didn’t really care what anybody else thought.
The historic diplomatic setbacks were supposed to be a humbling experience. The White House doesn’t see it that way.
I mentioned yesterday what a joke I thought Bush’s speech was at the United Nations. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one to notice.
Bush’s U.N. audience was hoping in vain that the U.S. approach to international cooperation in Iraq had softened over the months, perhaps made more flexible by a series of missteps. If you saw the speech, you know these hopes were quickly dashed.
As one German observer told the New York Times, Bush essentially said to the world that “the situation is not so desperate that he needs to make any concessions now.”
In fact, no one seems sure why Bush even bothered to deliver the speech at all. As the Washington Post reported, the president’s remarks “left diplomats and lawmakers puzzled about his ultimate intentions.”
“Bush, in fact, sidestepped direct answers to many of the questions that have arisen since the administration said it would seek a Security Council resolution that would expand the United Nations’ role in Iraq and call on countries to contribute more troops and money. How quickly would the United States grant sovereignty to the Iraqis? Would the administration grant any decision-making role to the United Nations in exchange for its imprimatur? Or does the administration simply want assistance without giving up much in return?”
No one, least of all Bush, seems to know.
Indeed, the U.N. seemed far more receptive to Bush’s arch nemesis. No, not Saddam Hussein, the French.
French President Jacques Chirac generated far greater applause for chastising Bush than Bush generated for patting his own back. “The United Nations has just weathered one of its most serious trials in its history: respect for the [U.N.] Charter, the use of force, were at the heart of the debate,” Chirac said. “The war, which was started without the authorization of the Security Council, has shaken the multilateral system.”
Secretary General Kofi Annan also seemed to capture the sentiment of the U.N. by criticizing Bush’s notion of “the right to act unilaterally or in ad hoc coalitions,” noting that the approach undermines the principles on which “world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.”
And to demonstrate just how inept the administration is at playing nicely with others, Bush and his diplomatic team — Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte — left the U.N. hall before Chirac began speaking.
It’s sometimes hard to believe such childish people are viewed as experts in foreign policy. Worse, they’re responsible for shaping and executing the foreign policy for the most powerful nation in the world.