Diplomacy

Diplomacy and Iraq:

An ongoing criticism of President Bush is that he has not done enough to use diplomacy to resolve the Iraq situation. Indeed, Kerry just spoke to the matter:

[A]s president [Kerry said] he would immediately convene a summit of all European and Arab heads of state "to figure out how together we're going to assume the burdens" of Iraq and proposing that another country could provide a base for training Iraqi security forces.

Kerry, taking questions from an invitation-only audience of Wisconsin voters, said "cutting and running" in Iraq would never be an option if he is commander in chief.

He said his proposed summit also would include searching for common ground to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and cut off Arab support for terrorist groups.

I include the last two paragraphs in order to be fair to the candidate. That is what he says he will do: not cut and run, solve the Israeli situation, prevent Iran from developing nukes, and cause Arabs to cease supporting terrorist groups. To which I say: all of that is wonderful if any of it is true. I can't quite imagine how he expects to achieve any of it, however, given previous statements (e.g., the plan to give Iran nuclear fuel doesn't really seem likely to "prevent," but rather to aid, the development of nuclear weapons; the way to "solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis" is a wonder that has eluded the best minds of three generations; and the question of cutting off Arab support for terrorists is another).

Having let him have his say, however, let us examine his one concrete proposal: a summit on "how together we're going to assume the burdens." I don't think it's unfair to say that this translates properly as, "how you people are going to assume some of the burdens you've been letting us carry for you."

Some thoughts on the topic have already returned from France and Germany, who said the US election would not change their policy:

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

...

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

Now, Kerry seems to be talking himself into pursuing less than what NATO has already agreed to do: to train people outside of Iraq, when NATO has already said they will train people inside of Iraq. That is, though, a minor quibble.

The major objection is the notion of a summit. Paris has already stated their terms:

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

France is unwilling to participate in a summit of allies seeking victory in Iraq.

France is only willing to participate in negotiating, not as an ally but as a "neutral," a US surrender to the insurgency.

The International Herald Tribune says that this "would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept." It does not seem able to say whether or not it would be difficult for a Kerry administration to accept.

I agree, on both points. However, I note that the French position is similiar to Kerry's on one other point: both of them have a "tense" relationship with Allawi and his government. Kerry openly craves French approval, and has adopted the French worldview on this and other points. Why should we not think he might adopt their plan for a negotiated surrender, under the vibrant but faithless heading of "Peace process"?

Kerry has chided the American government for failing to gain "the support of our allies." But the French are not our allies. They themselves have said so. We would do well not to forget.