Sir,
The nomination of Ambassador Susan E. Rice as Secretary of State would be a monumental mistake by the Obama administration. Ambassador Rice has repeatedly embarrassed the USA at the UN with her princess-like attitude to dialogue, temperamental walk-outs, and strategic outbursts of indignant (and misplaced) outrage. Indeed, Ambassador Rice’s conduct is rather more representative of the arrogant, alienating approach of Republican administration, and her actions at the UN are chillingly reminiscent of those of her predecessor at the UN, the Bush crony John R. Bolton. Ambassador Rice alienates and angers people; she does not bring people together, and has achieved little or nothing during her tenure at the UN. Ambassador Rice can only fail at mediating disputes and at promoting the interests of the US abroad. As such, Ambassador Rice would be a terrible Secretary of State. The Obama administration should think very carefully about the implications of having Miss Rice as the nation’s key diplomat.
Dr Rory E. Morty
Dr. Morty,
I firmly agree with you and would add her brand of foreign policy that reflects the administration misguided aspirations in supporting non-existent democratic movments. These old regimes “ancien regimes,” supported US actions, either tacitly or by active means. We had stability in these vital areas. I have said this before and I will keep saying it. These uprisings, Tunsia, Egypt, Libya and Syria are anti-regime focused not democratic. Democratic movements are lead by the countries elites, driven by the masses, supported by the limited civil society and have firm grassroots throughout the country, translating that type of governance is accepted by all components of society as the “only game in town.”
Destabilizing regimes, even if you have altruistic visions, with no credible evidence of a democratic movement, e.g. with massive grassroots support, is disastrous and only creates unstable or fractured states, where extremist seize the opportunity to obtain power. The notion of spreading democratization and the usage of military force to countries / nation-states where there is little evidence or support for democracy is self defeating, altruistic and a dangerous strategic policy to pursue. The wave of these Arab revolts is not indicative nor should characterized with liberalization morphing into democratic movements. Today’s western mindset associates these revolts with the De-Stalinization of Eastern Europe during the 1960’s calling it “Arab Spring.” , However there is no clear evidence of liberalization policies leading towards democratization led by the elites and driven by the masses, coupled with a civil society that is antithetical to democratization for cultural purposes.
Here are the commonalities that I see in the wave of revolts; the removal old regimes; a honeymoon period to follow; instillation of a provisional government and in some cases civil war, as the people in Libya are experiencing. These provisional governments have gone the same way Tunisia did. These ethno / sectarian based hypernational associations, turning into political entities, are using the democratic mechanisms to achieve power using “salami” / divide and conquer tactics that the Communist parties of Eastern Europe used.
In Egypt, the people elected a Morsi, a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose philosophy is anti-western. He is only acquiescing to the West because he still needs to establish firm control over the country, i.e. secure the loyalty of the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Interior-Police. That is his game plan. Just like communist takeover all over Central, South and Eastern Europe, the intent it is to work with other political entities, ensuring people that are loyal are in key positions and when the time is right, another authoritarian or potentially totalitarian regime is firmly in control.
Tunisa, went this way, Libya and Syria are engulfed in a civil war, where there is no evidence of a strong pro-western democratic movement. By unanimously supporting anti-regime movements with no true credible or legitimate democratic movement that is pro-western leaning is truly a failure in US Policy making. US paradoxical thinking may produce regimes, similar to Iran, even though idealist / activist foreign political thinking attempts to identity the overarch approach without considering the means to get there.
That being said, Ms. Rice is a academic and not a manager. Secretary of State not only guides US Foreign Policy but she also would manage a bureacracy and will have to interact with other agencies, where her adversarial behavior would create friction among federal departments.