What kind of diplomacy can we expect for the second Bush administration? As Bush prepares for his 4-day visit to Europe, currently more interested in the first referendum on the EU constitution taking place in Spain, and both sides (Europeans and Americans) are at least making conciliatory noises towards each other, what are the prospects for diplomacy to actually work?
("Just vote ‘Yes’ to the American Constitution and let’s not discuss it anymore" from this weekend’s Le Monde.)
A French diplomat has described the current administration as a mixture of realists, with whom you can negotiate), nationalists (hard-headed USA firsters who hate anything that stand in the way of US power, but who are at least rational and are willing to trade if you have something of interest to them), and the neo-cons, who are driven by ideology and are beyond the reach of reason. This diplomat (quoted by Le Canard Enchaine, a French weekly which is not online, but you can see the front page here) only identified Rumsfeld and Cheney in the second category, and was quite clear that Europeans did not know yet who was ascendant at this point.
It’s actually an interesting dynamic which is going on between the 3 groups, which you can ally in different ways.
The Good (or realists) are led by Zoellick (the new no.2 in the State Deptartment) and by the State Dept. in general. They are diplomats and traditionally favor diplomacy. They are not hostile to multilateral institutions per se and value working with allies under existing alliances and arrangements. With Zoellick, the former trade negotiator, at the helm, they are also likely to take into consideration economic and commercial ties with other countries.
The Bad (or nationalists) are also a fairly traditional species – the "might is right", USA come first, great power approach to international relations. The US should focus on its interests; as the strongest player around, it should try to maintain this dominance and it has a say in anything that goes around the planet. Other countries have divergent interests and cannot be expected to be permanent allies (or only at an excessive cost to the US) and relations with them should be on an ad hoc, case by case basis – this is the philosophy underlying the "coalition of the willing" concept, and the "Old Europe" vs "New Europe" digs (divide and rule to avoid the emergence of a strong Europe).
The Ugly (or neocons) are driven by an ideological mindset which I will not try to go into too much detail. In the most positive description I can make, one could say that they are idealists, with a vision that the US should intervene in the world to bring democracy and freedom to those that do not have them yet, if necessary by force. The status quo in the Middle East was a failure, not to be tolerated anymore, and anything that would replace the current corrupt and failed regimes would be a progress, especially if the US had a hand in shaping the outcome.
With respect to Europe, I’ll put their respective positions succinctly:
– the realists are broadly favorable to the European Union: the Europeans share broadly the same democratic values and are well known partners in most international forums, it’s easier to discuss with Brussels than with 24 different governments, the bothersome French are kept in check by others within the EU framework, and if they get their shit together, the Europeans can actually help the Americans in various hotspots around the globe. On the trade negotiations, the two sides are broadly evenly matched and can impose their will against the rest of the world; with the emergence of new assertive trading powers like Brazil and China, the EU and the US might end up being on the same side more often than not. Altogether, it’s complex, frustrating, at times nasty, but it is a relationship that works and should be kept that way.
– the nationalists are at the same time more dismissive and wary of the Europeans. They tell them that they don’t matter anymore, with US strategic interests mostly being in the Pacific, Asia and the Middle East. They mock them for being unable to act together militarily – but at the same time try to prevent any effort in that direction to succeed. They like the Atlantic institutions so long as the Europeans fall in line when required, and as this is not happening so easily anymore, they tend to discard them more and more in favor of ad hoc coalitions. They play European powers against each other, with a special treatment for France, as the more troublesome of all – but they also respect France for fighting tooth and nail for its interests and its ability and willingness to act forcefully in some occasions – and the 2 countries do work together when it is convenient.
– the neocons have mixed feelings for Europe – they berate them for their hypocrisy, inefficient "realpolitik" and tolerance for the (evil and corrupt) status quo; they dismiss them for their weakness and wimpiness, but they do see the European Union as an interesting concept to promote peace and democracy, as long as it is under and behind the US shield and sword. It is also a convenient source of funds and "nation building bureaucrats" once they have done the dirty job of toppling the nasty regimes they are targeting.
The Bad and the Ugly share a simple understanding of international relations that there are no rules, that only power and strength get results, and they are therefore both keen to have a strong military and to use it, both to get specific results and as a demonstration to others;
The Good and the Bad are not driven by ideology so much and are mostly reality-based. They are usually able to take facts on the ground into account and are thus amenable to discussion and compromise. They both fear the unpredictable consequences and economic cost of the chaos promoted by the neo-cons. Europeans are familiar with both, and while they obviously would rather deal with the "Good", they understand the "Bad" and can manage them (playing to their strengths when available to impose changes in behavior or submitting to the US otherwise);
Interestingly enough, the Good and the Ugly can probably be separated from the Bad on the topic of democracy and freedom; The realists certainly don’t give a damn about democracy in the rest of the world – what is important is whether the regime is friendly or not, not how that result is obtained.
The question, of course, is – who will get the upper hand? Where do we put Bush? and Rice?
Bush appears, from his discourse, to be closest to the neo-cons, with his idealistic speeches and references to "freedom" and "liberty" is every sentence. In his behavior and background (privileged frat-boy), he seems to be more of the "nationalist" – aprés moi le déluge mentality to take a very narrow view of his/the US’s interests; The strength and persistence of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the isolation and inability of Colin Powell to influence policy much shows that the policies are closer to the nationalistic version, with (big) bones thrown to the neo-cons to play with.
The nomination of Condoleeza Rice at the State Dept is not likely to change things much. Her utility is her loyalty to Bush. When the conflicts between the preferred attitude of the State Dept ("realism") and the preferences of her boss will clash, one of the following will happen:
– she will "go native", defend diplomacy – and she will be marginalized;
– she will stop the "ms nice guy" role she is currently playing, and the hardball policy of the nationalists will become the sole face of US to the world.
Either way, the policies are not likely to change, even if there is a effort currently to at least avoid saying any more provocative or combative things to Europeans (and they have nothing to lose to adopt the same tone).
The important thing to note about current US policy is that it is driven most of all by its belief that the only players are States. This is an administration that does not believe in multinational institutions, and which does not seem to care about non-State groups/threats like terrorist networks, international money laundering and drug alliances, and collective attempts at global solutions like Kyoto, the ICC and so forth. They care about Iran, North Korea, China, Poland, not about the UN, APEC, European Union, NATO or al-Qaida.
Iran is going to be the big test of all this – I will write about it later.
So – expect a lot of smiles and soothing noises in the coming days, but no substantive changes.