On Condoleezza Rice
On January 26, 2005 Condoleezza Rice was confirmed as the USA Secretary of State. My articles at AV On some planned badness and CB On ‘is Syria next for Bush?’ reflect my view that in many respects Condoleezza Rice is probably the most dangerous woman on this planet.
She has been described as a hawk amongst hawks – but her success to date has reinforced the real problem ‘for she believes she is always right’.
In chapter 15 of My Views on Terrorism I note Condoleezza’s increasing influence in the restructuring of US security services.
Below are found an assortment of biographic details:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: from her official website
Biography of Dr Condoleezza Rice, as per the Whitehouse
Condoleezza Rice: Mr Bush's right-hand woman
Condoleezza Rice by von Lisa Scheidl
The Fatuous Mind of Condoleezza Rice
Bolting Bolton: Condoleezza’s Bold present to the World
Succession with a difference!
From her official website
Nominated for USA Secretary of State, November 16, 2004, Confirmed on January 26, 2005
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State on January 26, 2005. Prior to this, she was the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, since January, 2001.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
January 2005
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
July 2004
Condoleezza Rice is the first woman to occupy the key post of national security adviser. She is the most academic member of the Bush foreign affairs team and - because of her gender, background and youth - one of the most distinctive. She is personally close to Mr Bush, barely leaving his side during the 2000 presidential election. And, as a well-liked and trusted policy adviser, she has proved a useful ally for a president with little experience of foreign affairs.
Past advisers
The profile of the national security adviser varies from one administration to the next, as does their power over policy. Some, like Ms Rice's mentor (and national security adviser to George Bush Snr), Brent Scowcroft, were important, but low-profile co-ordinators of foreign policy. Others, such as Bill Clinton's Sandy Berger, were more visible. Perhaps the most powerful and visible national security adviser of recent years was Henry Kissinger, who started as national security adviser to Richard Nixon and then became his secretary of state.
Uncompromising positions
Ms Rice's influence over the new administration's early foreign policy strategy has been considerable. She led the tricky negotiations with Russia (her academic specialisation) over missile defence, and is thought to have spearheaded the unilateralist tone of the first months of the Bush presidency. Her uncompromising positions on missile defence, Russia and the environment won respect but helped build the European caricature of the new president as toxic troglodyte. She has since admitted that the Kyoto decision could have been handled better. However, Ms Rice, like many in the administration, thinks of US foreign policy largely in terms of US national and strategic interest, and she is no fan of the US acting as a paternalistic nation-builder.
Against the odds
Ms Rice was born in 1954 and grew up in Birmingham, Alabama under the shadow of segregation. She has often said that to get ahead she had to be "twice as good" and her childhood chiselled her strong determination and self-respect. Taught by her parents that education provided armour against segregation and prejudice, Ms Rice worked her way to college by the age of 15. She graduated at 19 from the University of Denver with a degree in political science.
Soviet interest
It was at Denver that Ms Rice first became interested in international relations and the study of the Soviet Union. Her inspiration came from a course taught by the Czech refugee, Josef Korbel, father to the United States' first woman Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. A masters and doctorate followed and, at the age of 26, Ms Rice became a fellow at Stanford University's Centre for International Security and Arms Control. After serving as the Soviet affairs adviser on Bush Senior's National Security Council, Condoleezza Rice returned to Stanford in 1991 and, in 1993, became the youngest, the first female and first non-white provost.
It is difficult to make generalisations about Condoleezza Rice. She is an African-American National Security Adviser, but for a Republican administration that won just 10% of the black vote. Some profiles of Rice describe her as precise and prissy. But she is also a pianist, ice skater and sports fan. Rice's belief in education and self-improvement seem to be the key to understanding her. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Rice said that despite growing up with racial segregation, personal expectations were high.
"My parents had me absolutely convinced that, well, you may not be able to have a hamburger at Woolworth's but you can be president of the United States."
The then 10 year old Ms. Rice was on a family trip in Washington, her gaze fixed on the White House. Today the 45 year-old wields influence on decisions affecting the world, geared by the idea that, "The United States has special responsibilities in keeping the peace because we’re the only military of consequence that can handle global responsibilities." Possibly one of the most striking things about Ms. Rice is her sudden emergence into the public eye and appointment as chief foreign policy advisor .
Born in Birmingham, Alabama in 1956, she grew up in a sheltered environment taking ballet, piano and French lessons three times a week. Her mother bought all her Girl Scout cookies so she wouldn’t have to go door-to-door, facing racial issues and segregation. However, when she was 9 she was confronted with racial hatred when a bomb exploded at a Baptist church in Westminster and a schoolmate was killed. Being both female and African-American she is frequently confronted with questions concerning her stance on discrimination and (in)famous for her rather placid views on the subject where she places emphasis on downplaying such issues, "I’ve always felt you should not see race and gender in everything."
A graduate student in foreign policy in the late 80s(her fellowship at Stanford´s Hoover Institution from 1985 to 1986) Ms. Rice went to Washington D.C. to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship. In 1989 she was appointed director of Soviet and East European affairs with the National Security Council(NSC) as well as special assistant to the president(then Bush Sr.) for national security affairs. After two years at the NSC she returned to Stanford where she joined the political science faculty, becoming the school´s youngest, and first female and first black, provost. Rice draws parallels to the general trend businesses went through in the 80s with her relatively radical budgeteering programme to deal with the deficit Stanford was suffering under. Cutting down on staff and moving toward revenue-constrained budgeting(meaning that the university has to live within its means) caused controversy but in her opinion a ´healthier economy`.
Her curt decisiveness displayed at Standford is apparent in her position as chief foreign policy advisor. However, in this capacity her decisions do not merely affect an educational institution. Today, on the NSC front she cut staff by a third and reorganized it to emphasize strategy, including national missile defence(NMD) and international economics. Offices once dealing separately with Europe, Russia and the Balkans have been consolidated. As well as this, divisions responsible for the handling of international environmental and health issues have been eliminated. Strengthening the armed forces and defence budgets while simultaneously keeping out of conflicts are blatant points on the Bush agenda. However, the patronising, often ignorant and world-policeman attitude are still prevalent, the aforementioned NMD an example of a dominating foreign policy.
The Fatuous Mind of Condoleezza Rice
Few elections in US history have been as of little significance as this year’s contest. Whoever is sworn in next January, we can be pretty sure that the same countries will continue to be bombed; the same countries "contained"; the same countries "deterred"; the same countries starved and frozen into submission; the same countries lectured about their shortcomings. The IMF and the World Bank will continue as ubiquitous adjuncts to US foreign policy. USAID and the NED will continue promoting their hapless clients. For evidence one need look no further than the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs. It contains an article by Condolezza Rice grandly entitled "Promoting the National Interest." Condolezza Rice is, of course, one of George W. Bush’s chief advisers and widely touted as the next Secretary of State.
In all fairness one has to say that Condolezza is a lot more agreeable to look at than Madeleine Albright. And she seems to be a much nicer person – no great feat to be sure – than the hideous harridan. But that is where the differences end. In every other respect Rice and Albright are two peas in a pod. Rice is full of classic, vapid Clintonisms like "history marches towards markets and democracy." This hackneyed piece of eschatology – which we owe to that towering genius Francis Fukuyama – serves the same purpose that the Marxist variant once did. When rulers find that "history" is not marching quite fast enough, they give it a good shove. The Clinton Administration has, of course, been doing plenty of shoving over the last seven years. From terror-bombing in the Balkans to the forced removal of Indonesia’s President Suharto to the slow annihilation of the Iraqis the US has been spreading havoc with the sublime self-assurance of one who believes he walks with God.
Should we expect the same from George W. Bush? Yes. Ominously, Condolezza starts off by trotting out that most tired of cliches: the image of the diffident, naïve, "Aw Shucks" America. Under a Bush Administration, she implies, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. "Many in the United States," she announces, "are…uncomfortable with the notions of power politics….In an extreme form, this discomfort leads to a reflexive appeal instead to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states – or even better, of institutions like the United Nations – is essential to the legitimate exercise of power. The ‘national interest’ is replaced with ‘humanitarian interests’ or the interests of ‘the international community’. The belief that the United States is exercising power legitimately only when it is doing so on behalf of someone or something else was deeply rooted in Wilsonian thought, and there are strong echoes of it in the Clinton administration."
Now, no one in the world – not in Europe, not in Asia, not in Africa, nowhere – believes that the United States is an altruistic power. No one believes that the United States will ever allow itself to be restrained by the wishes of the United Nations or by the exigencies of international law. The United States is the leading power in the world today. It did not get there by altruism. Every imperial power in history has used force, aggression, conquest, deviousness, terror and chicanery to get to the top. The United States is no different. Look at the Second World War! There is the fairy-tale we tell the children: The United States woke out of its isolationist slumbers, realized what needed to be done and went off to crush Hitler and bring freedom and democracy to a benighted world. The truth is otherwise. The United States watched Britain, France, Russia and Germany exhaust themselves before stepping in to pick up the winnings. Throughout the war years the United Sates was at least as determined to liquidate the European empires as it was to defeat Nazi Germany.
As for the "humanitarian interventions," what does she mean? The devastation of the Balkans? The Clinton crowd rejected one peace plan after another for Bosnia. They egged on the Moslems, secured arms for them from Iran and masterminded the expulsion of Serbs from Krajina and western Bosnia. Does Rice mean Kosovo? It takes a truly fatuous mind to call the horrific ten-week bombing campaign last year as "humanitarian." In fact, the only US intervention anywhere that might be called "humanitarian" was President Bush’s 1992 mission to distribute food in Somalia. Rice was working for George Bush at the time. (She does not mention – surprise – her former boss’s little caper.)
In fact, Rice has no problems at all with any of Clinton’s interventions. The only thing she whines about is that the US may not have enough force at its disposal to put everyone in his place. It is "unwise to multiply missions in the face of continuing budget reduction," she pontificates. When George W. Bush takes over "military readiness will…take center stage…new weapons will have to be procured in order to give the military the capacity to carry out today’s missions." Great! And what are these missions (as if we do not already know)? Well, there is Kosovo. Kosovo, she explains using terms that reveal the bottomless mediocrity of her intellect, "was in the backyard of America’s most important strategic alliance: NATO…. Slobodan Milosevic’s rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Kosovar Albanians threatened to rock the area’s fragile ethnic balance…the United States had an overriding strategic interest in stopping him." Condolezza would have let fly as eagerly as Albright. That’s good to know. Rice appears to be happily oblivious to the painful and humiliating agreements that Milosevic accepted so as to avoid the bombing he knew America was bent on. The October 1998 deal with Richard Holbrooke provided for Serbia’s withdrawal from Kosovo and the introduction of 2000 OSCE observers. The KLA seized the opportunity to step up its offensive – which is exactly what the US wanted it to do. Rice proffers the usual dreary litany of complaints about Clinton’s Kosovo policy: The "Administration’s political goals kept shifting"; it was not ready for a "decisive use of military force"; there is no "political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces." Meaningless verbiage piles up on meaningless verbiage. I wonder George W. Bush’s "game plan" is. Create a Greater Albania? Assassinate Milosevic? Invade Serbia? Exterminate the Serbs?
I do not doubt he will do what Clinton would do were he to serve another term – bomb Serbia for refusing to give independence to the Montenegrins, whether they want it or not. As Rice drones on, she sounds indistinguishable from Strobe Talbott, Lawrence Summers, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton crowd. She is wholeheartedly in favor of further NATO expansion: "The door to NATO for the remaining states of eastern and central Europe should remain open." She is concerned about the European Security and Defense Identity, because it might – horror! – undermine US leadership: "The United States has an interest in shaping the European defense identity – welcoming a greater European military capability as long as it is within the context of NATO."
As for China, it is "a potential threat to stability to in the Asia-Pacific region….China will do what it can to enhance its position, whether by stealing nuclear secrets or by trying to intimidate Taiwan." What is wrong with China enhancing its position? Why is that a threat to "stability" unless the US chooses to make it so? Oh and did China "steal" nuclear secrets? Where is the evidence? Russia too is a threat. "Moscow is determined to assert itself in the world," she argues, "and often does so in ways that are at once haphazard and threatening to America’s interests." Like the Albrights and Talbotts she wants to create US satellites in the Caucasus. She talks of the "vulnerability of the small, new states around Russia and of America’s interest in their independence."
Goerge W. Bush’s agenda will be the familiar one of bombing, deterring, containing, punishing, lecturing, impoverishing. China has to be stopped from becoming a regional hegemon. Japan must be used to contain China but must subordinate its military to the US. Japan must get its economic house in order – adopt American-style capitalism in other words. Russia must stop trying to keep its Federation together. Europeans must stop trying to build up an independent military capability. Saddam Hussein must be overthrown. Iran must be contained. And so and so on.
In an interview published by Stanford University last year Rice explained her vision: "First, we need to make certain that the international system remains stable and secure from a military point of view so that no hegemon can rise to threaten stability. Second, we should promote an open international economic system, including trade and the development of markets. And third, we should work to extend and expand the values that really do support democracy – whether they be human rights or political rights – and to try to promote their spread." This is an imperial agenda. It is the delusion of all imperial powers that they will enjoy world hegemony for ever. It is the conceit of all imperial powers that, unlike any of their predecessors, they are motivated by high-minded idealism. The American empire will suffer the same fate as the empires of Napoleon, Hitler and Caesar. Power and dominance for their own sake offers few attractions to others. And the invocation of "values" to justify imperial rule serves only to infuriate those upon whom these blessings are to be bestowed.
From Arabic Media Internet Network
Bolting Bolton: Condoleezza’s Bold present to the World
on International Women’s Day
By: Dr.Safia El Issa* on March 8th, 2005
Condolezza Rice, has offered us today another pleasant surprise. . With her large smile, she has bolted down on the UN and the world John Bolton as the new US ambassador at the United Nations.
“The Dubious Career of John Bolton :The Last Mad Man at Foggy Bottom ”is the interesting title of an extremely well documented article by Gabriel Espinoza Gonzales published in November 2004, where the author unveils the underlying ideology of Condolezza’s new staunch neo-conservative Ambassador.
The article starts by referring to an Op-Ed published on November 17, 1997in the Wall Street Journal in which the author expressed, in unequivocal terms, his intemperate and dismissive attitude towards Washington's adherence to multilateral international accords, writing "treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." He then added “The author of this piece, whose conclusions were widely disputed by individuals far more knowledgeable on the subject than himself, is current Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, the man now being mentioned to replace Richard Armitage as Deputy Secretary of State under Condolezza Rice and an unwavering neo-conservative ideologue in the most ultra sense of the word. Ultra-right elements in the White House, the Pentagon and Congress are strongly pushing for Bolton to be nominated, for they see in him the ideal candidate to help Rice mold the State Department to their profile. Such an appointment will assure that State officials will harmonize their thrust with the rest of the Bush administration's ideologically-driven foreign policy agenda.”
Bolton, a vehement enemy of International Law, Treaties and Organisations, published an article in the Winter 1998 issue of the conservative journal The National Interest, where he expanded on his staunch opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In it, he claimed that if Washington were to ratify the accord, it would limit this country's foreign policy initiatives, since "the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy," would become "the potential targets of the politically unaccountable Prosecutor created in Rome." Thus implying that Washington's actions should never be restricted by or put to the test by any notion of international legality or morality, ignoring that prosecution before the ICC could be reserved as a last resort to punish criminal behavior such as ‘genocide’.
In the same article, Bolton also referred to Washington's decision to withdraw from the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the predecessor to the ICC. since in 1986, the ICJ had ruled that the U.S. had violated its obligations not to use force against and not to violate the sovereignty of another state as a result of its continued "military and paramilitary operations in and against" Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Washington, under Reagan’s administration, never abided then by the ruling, ignored the court’s decision and did not accept responsibility for what was found to be its criminal behavior .
Previously in a June 25, 1995 Op-Ed published in the Washington Times , he criticized the Clinton administration for continued funding of "programs on international population control and environmental matters rather than fundamental economic policy reforms in developing countries”.
Bolton's hard-line and right-wing credentials were reaffirmed in 1999 when he signed a statement prepared by the “Project for the New American Century” criticizing the Clinton administration for its failure to offer unequivocal support of Taiwan. The statement, signed by other neo-conservative and right-wing luminaries such as William Kristol, William Buckley, Paul Weyrich, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitiz, William Bennett, and Elliott Abrams, called for a "state-to-state" relationship with Taiwan.
In an article for the right-wing Weekly Standard (10/4/99) entitled "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," Bolton excoriates the UN Secretary General for trying to limit warfare and to establish the supremacy of UN forces. In Bolton's words, "If the United States allows that claim to go unchallenged, its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future."
On U.S. arrears to the UN, Bolton proclaimed, "[M]any Republicans in Congress--and perhaps a majority--not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a 'make my day' outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost... this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the UN system." Bolton is also a hard-line opponent to U.S. peacekeeping missions, whether under the UN or unilaterally. When George W. Bush denounced the use of the military for so-called "nation building," he was repeating Bolton's criticism of the Clinton administration's efforts in Somalia and elsewhere. Nonetheless, Bolton did favor the bombing of Serbia--which was presumably not nation building, nor was it pursued under UN auspices. On North Korea, Bolton has declared that the U.S. should make "it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have 'normal' diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours."
After the Senate voted not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Bolton declared categorically, "CTBT is dead
In 2001, at the onset of the Bush administration, Bolton clearly set the tone for his most important contribution to US policy, "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."
Bolton's reputation as the advance ideologue for the right wing continued to grow during his tenure in the George W. administration and he was the one to sign the letter to Kofi Annan in May 2002 renouncing any role for the U.S. in the International Criminal Court.
Moreover, Bolton has been a staunch advocate of the administration's revival of the "Star Wars" missile defense system, and of its rejection of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
In early May 2002, Bolton signaled in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that the administration may be targeting Cuba in its war on terrorism. His "Beyond the Axis of Evil" speech claimed, without any evidence, that Cuba was developing biological weapons and sharing its expertise with other U.S. enemies
There is much more to John Bolton, but so much for now as to Condolezza’s Best Wishes to all the women of the International Solidarity Movement on International Women’s Day.
* Palestinian Researcher holding a Ph.D in History and living in Europe.
The incumbent US secretary of state Colin Powell leaves office next week. He is to be succeeded by Dr. Condoleezza Rice (subject to confirmation by the Senate). Bush second term in the White House witnessed several changes in the cabinet. But Condoleezza Rice will make a succession with a difference. Why so?
Colin Powell, the top US diplomat in Bush’s first cabinet was, above all else, a professional soldier, and remained so during his entire tenure. As a soldier, nothing stood in the way of his subservience to the presidential policy and prerogative. Remember, for example, that famous presentation by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council in February 2003? In the run up to the US invasion of Iraq he had stoutly though unconvincingly tried his best to defend his president’s case of invasion of Iraq. That was (to many) a perfunctory performance, to some a tragic one; with lack of conviction he felt compelled to say and show things that he very well might have known to lack substance or credibility. Only much later when the myth of WMD was exploded, he could and did manage to make limp vapid excuses equally lacking in conviction. If he is one with honour and dignity, his ineffectiveness and lack of ability to make his honest differences with the administration public did not elevate his stature even though his sincerity might not be doubtful. He clung to his office way too long even though he was sidelined and his position sabotaged by his colleagues who wielded much heavier clout.
By all appearance, Colin Powell chose to stay trapped into a difficult situation but who lacked the willingness and ability to call it a day and quit with honour and dignity. Clearly enough though he had differences with the administration he accepted being ignored and chose to remain loyal at the cost of being ineffective and inarticulate. By doing so he diminished his stature and dignity by more than mere appearance.
Condoleezza Rice (endearingly called ‘Condi’ by her president) is widely known as a presidential hawk; is close to the inner coterie and committed to the ‘neo-con’ agenda of US ideologues in the post-cold war era. She is also the one who has the ‘ears of the president’, a close confidant with considerable clout. Dr. Rice’s hawkish credentials which suits her admirably for the second Bush term. Who knows Condoleezza might blend her Christian faith with her world view of people of other faiths. Time will tell if she can command the superbly subtle diplomatic skills found conspicuously lacking during the first Bush term; whether she can walk the thin line between the ‘imperial’ mission of crafting the world in the US image by sheer force of military supremacy and the alternative of ‘selling’ the US foreign policy to a divided and largely sceptic world with a softer more accommodative touch.
One thing might work in her favour, and make a difference between her predecessor and her own tenure in the office of the chief US diplomat. Dr. Rice because of her far better access to the president and because of her unequivocal views held with clarity and conviction might be better suited to temper an otherwise stubborn or impatient president, might let her advice contest and eventually prevail over those of her competitors for power and influence. It is also likely that Dr. Rice will be less hesitant or less inhibited in expressing her own convictions and bring pressure or persuasion with greater skill and to greater impact upon the US foreign policy in the second term. She might be able to prevail without compromising her loyalty to her boss but with a greater and more effective articulation of her viewpoint.
Condoleezza Rice has not been without a certain kind of charm; with effusion of some new found chemistry she could well be able to mend some if not all the broken fences. Let us wait and see. In Bush second term, a person like Dr. Rice with consummate skills and strength of character groomed perhaps during her tenure in academia (in Stanford University) might prove an asset. An America with a gentler and more enlightened world view will be welcome relief not only to a world ‘out on a limb’ but also towards a fairer, more equitable and just peaceful and stable Middle East in particular.
Zakir Husain
Dhaka