Wha..?!
Speaking in Malaysia, Secretary Rice was hesitant to commit to a specific time for her to return to the Mideast to work on a resolution of the fighting.
Has she got somewhere more important to be? Another piano recital or something?
It seems to me that she is the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and she could probably spend as much time as she wanted anywhere in the world she wanted to. What's with this "whatever time I can spend there?" (It's not like she's urgently jetting off to defuse the situation in North Korea.)
Of course I realize that a key component of the power of the US Secretary of State is the prestige of the office, and that it's important that the advance people and the hardworking folks behind the scenes get things moved to a point where a dramatic visit by the big presence can make a difference. And maybe it would be useful for people there to think they'll have to make a deal fast once she gets there, and give her the ability to say "Hey, look, my jet is double-parked. Can we get a move on?" But seriously, 'whatever time I can spend there'? Who is she kidding?
Unless ... Bush wants her elsewhere? Maybe Mr. Bush is keeping her on a tight leash, so she isn't sure he will let her spend time there? That could be. Maybe she's worried about her curfew. Is she worried that he'll take away her shopping priveleges?
Lucky for her that nice Mr. Blair flew to Washington to talk to him, and got him to loosen up.
I realize I'm using some rhetoric that is rude and insulting to Secretary Rice. Perhaps she doesn't deserve it. I just wish I could go for a week without someone in the administration using rhetoric that is rude and insulting to the intelligence of the listener. They don't even seem to realize.
There may be limitations on the amount of time she can spend there, but they aren't abstract or immutable. They are the direct expression of the administration's policies. It's not that she can't spend time there, it's that they don't want her to. It's not "make the most of whatever time I can spend there," it's "make the most of whatever time I'm willing to spend there."
Henry Kissinger spent months. Warren Christopher didn't just drop by, either. But that was the old days.
The signals from the Bush administration are clear, even if most of the world finds them hard to understand. They aren't playing by the old rules. They've rejected the past methods of finding solutions. Engagement, peacemaking, shuttle diplomacy, all the previously established expectations about what the US will do when the Mideast flares up should be canned.
Maybe a new approach is what's called for, maybe this is a different situation, maybe they're right. I don't know enough to say. I'm not hopeful, given the outcomes of all the other foreign policy initiatives from this administration, but it is something new, and none of the past techniques have yielded permanent solutions.
But I think it would help for them to be a bit more frank about it. Many of us and the rest of the world is still expecting the United States we used to be. (You'd have thought they'd have gotten the message by now, but it's hard to undo decades of habit.)
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she would return to the Middle East "when it is right" but gave no timetable, dashing hopes she would launch a new Middle East peace drive on Friday.She had some interesting phrasing about that:
Rice had been set to leave Malaysia, where she was attending a meeting of Asian leaders, but her staff said she delayed her departure until Saturday.
It was unclear where she would go to next but Rice indicated it was too early to use her diplomatic muscle and push for a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, which has been pounding Hizbollah in southern Lebanon for over two weeks.
"I do think it is important that groundwork be laid so I can make the most of whatever time I can spend there," Rice told a news conference at a conference on Asian issues."Whatever time I can spend there?" Excuse me?
Has she got somewhere more important to be? Another piano recital or something?
It seems to me that she is the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and she could probably spend as much time as she wanted anywhere in the world she wanted to. What's with this "whatever time I can spend there?" (It's not like she's urgently jetting off to defuse the situation in North Korea.)
Of course I realize that a key component of the power of the US Secretary of State is the prestige of the office, and that it's important that the advance people and the hardworking folks behind the scenes get things moved to a point where a dramatic visit by the big presence can make a difference. And maybe it would be useful for people there to think they'll have to make a deal fast once she gets there, and give her the ability to say "Hey, look, my jet is double-parked. Can we get a move on?" But seriously, 'whatever time I can spend there'? Who is she kidding?
Unless ... Bush wants her elsewhere? Maybe Mr. Bush is keeping her on a tight leash, so she isn't sure he will let her spend time there? That could be. Maybe she's worried about her curfew. Is she worried that he'll take away her shopping priveleges?
Lucky for her that nice Mr. Blair flew to Washington to talk to him, and got him to loosen up.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will return to the Middle East on Saturday for more talks about the conflict in southern Lebanon.Frankly, I'm not sure I really care about where she goes, or if I want her in the Mideast, since Rome seemed like a big waste of time. (Given the administration's policy, the expectation that US involvement will make a positive difference soon seems unfounded.)
Bush said he and visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that a international force for southern Lebanon should be sent quickly in order to help facilitate shipments of humanitarian aid.
I realize I'm using some rhetoric that is rude and insulting to Secretary Rice. Perhaps she doesn't deserve it. I just wish I could go for a week without someone in the administration using rhetoric that is rude and insulting to the intelligence of the listener. They don't even seem to realize.
There may be limitations on the amount of time she can spend there, but they aren't abstract or immutable. They are the direct expression of the administration's policies. It's not that she can't spend time there, it's that they don't want her to. It's not "make the most of whatever time I can spend there," it's "make the most of whatever time I'm willing to spend there."
Henry Kissinger spent months. Warren Christopher didn't just drop by, either. But that was the old days.
The signals from the Bush administration are clear, even if most of the world finds them hard to understand. They aren't playing by the old rules. They've rejected the past methods of finding solutions. Engagement, peacemaking, shuttle diplomacy, all the previously established expectations about what the US will do when the Mideast flares up should be canned.
Maybe a new approach is what's called for, maybe this is a different situation, maybe they're right. I don't know enough to say. I'm not hopeful, given the outcomes of all the other foreign policy initiatives from this administration, but it is something new, and none of the past techniques have yielded permanent solutions.
But I think it would help for them to be a bit more frank about it. Many of us and the rest of the world is still expecting the United States we used to be. (You'd have thought they'd have gotten the message by now, but it's hard to undo decades of habit.)
posted by Paul at 9:52 AM |
|
email this
