Rice's refusal to try and bring both warring sides to the negotiating table will likely doom her Middle East jaunt. It makes her talk of a long-term Middle East solution sound disingenuous and empty.
The Israel and Hezbollah battles dumped Rice back on the diplomatic hot seat. But it's hardly the first time that Rice has been in that seat. In February, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee virtually dumped Bush's international miscues on her. That's both fair and unfair. Rice is Bush's point person on foreign policy. Her job is to sell administration policy decisions on North Korean nukes, Iran, the Middle East turmoil, the war on terrorism and Iraq. And as any Secretary of State, she'll take the heat when things go wrong internationally.
Rice has been a soft target for criticism from the moment that Bush announced that he'd appoint her to take over from the departing Colin Powell as Secretary of State. The howls started that Rice was too hawkish, too fawning toward Bush, too lacking in social and diplomatic graces and too inexperienced to broker a Middle East deal and resolve the crisis over Iran and North Korea's nuke threat. Rice didn't burnish her image as a take-charge diplomat when she initially waffled on whether to lead a peace mission to the Middle East to stop the Israeli-Hezbollah warfare. She begged off with the vapid and unsatisfactory rejoinder that she'd only go if she could be "helpful." It took a forceful nudge by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the loud cries from UN member nations of Bush's inaction on the fighting to get Rice on a plane scurrying to the Middle East.
Rice's invisibility and die-hard Bush loyalty has been her diplomatic trademark. There were long stretches during the intense debates over Bush's Iraq war policy, the war on terrorism, foreign policy and security matters, when Rice, then Bush's National Security Advisor, sank from public view. During those time lapses, Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and even Vice President Dick Cheney became familiar fixtures on talk shows explaining Bush policy. Some inveterate Bush watchers asked, "Where's Condi?"
Rice's role is not to make policy but to follow Bush policy directives. Like a good team player, she takes orders, follows directions and does not stray one inch from the Bush administration political script.
Even if Rice took her boss to task on some aspects of foreign policy, and Bush listened, the glaring flaws would not instantly be picked out of his policies. There are complex, competing economic and political interests that help shape American foreign policy apart from Bush's, or any other president's, ideology and world view. Iraq is a near-textbook example of that. The Senate Republicans, and even most of the Democrats, that pounded her for Bush's Iraq bungling dutifully voted for the war and have repeatedly given foreign policy cover for it.
While Bush and Rice hotly deny that oil has anything to do with the decision to impose a regime change in Iraq, Iraq's oil is worth billions, and U.S. oil and energy companies make no secret that they intend to control it and reap the profits. Rice is only a bit player in the global economic decisions that go into making and shaping U.S. foreign policy.
The fighting in the Middle East is less a test of Rice's talent and ability to broker peace in the region than confirmation that her main job is to tirelessly defend Bush's foreign policy initiatives, even when they are nonexistent or badly flawed. It's that job that she has done remarkably well, even as the casualties and suffering in Lebanon irk the world.
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.
July 24, 2006 (http://www.albionmonitor.com)
All Rights Reserved.
Contact email@example.com for permission to use in any format.