Thus far in the War for the Free World, America's efforts to utilize diplomatic weapons have been seriously hampered, if not largely counterproductive.
A. A Free-Range State Department
State Department policies are, in truth, often oriented less to the interests of the United States than to the concerns of other countries (which are treated as "clients" of the State Department).
Repeatedly, the State Department has acted in ways that undermine announced policies of the incumbent administration, in such areas as:
- Promotion of freedom and democracy in the Middle East
- The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- The International Criminal Court (ICC)
- The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
- The Kyoto Protocol
- Counter-proliferation strategies regarding North Korea and Iran
This divided diplomacy harms the cause of the Free World, diminishes the prospects for a timely victory, and puts the lives of Americans at greater risk.
Many State Department professionals believe that they alone are equipped and authorized to make foreign policy judgments. Some of our diplomats even argue that State needs to operate independently of the elected administration, to pursue its own foreign policies - without regard to decisions of the President and the Congress.
Even in the middle of a war, the development of national security policies benefits from give-and-take between officials and agencies with different portfolios, responsibilities, and perspectives. In the event they disagree with the resulting decision, our government representatives are certainly still entitled to express their opposition - but from outside the government, after resigning from office.
Contributors: Fred Gedrich and Gen. Paul Vallely USA
B. A Hostile United Nations
The need for reform of some of the United Nations systems and offices is widely recognized, particularly in the wake of the release of damning details of the corrupt and malfeasant Oil-for-Food program. However, even the most sweeping of the changes currently being discussed fails to address the fundamental problems of the UN.
As a deliberative body, the United Nations is merely the sum of its parts. That is, UN decisions reflect the interests and priorities of most its member nations. It is important to understand the character of the UN majority, and the way negotiations consequently typically go at the UN.
Only 88 of the UN's 191 member nations can be considered fully-fledged democracies. The non-democratic majority effectively controls the funds, programs and overall agenda of the United Nations, supported by the well-organized "non-aligned" movement. (Note that the 115 nations in the non-aligned group together account for less than one percent of the UN's total budget, compared with 22% for the United States.) UN initiatives are almost invariably injurious to the economic and geo-political interests of the United States, its largest contributor.
The lowest common denominator - namely, the prevailing side in most UN votes - is hardly motivated by the ambition to make the world "safe for democracy" (to borrow Woodrow Wilson's apt phrase). The dictatorships that drive the UN agenda are interested only in preserving and extending their power.
So, far from serving the best interests of mankind, UN initiatives may in fact be harmful to the common good. Indeed, the UN is of enormous value to the anti-democratic cabal as an instrument of political warfare against their Free World opponents.
Contributors: Claudia Rosett and Cliff Kincaid
C. Recruit Academia
As the need for those with expertise in the languages and cultures of the Middle East and other strategic regions reaches an historic high, universities - and particularly their US taxpayer-supported regional studies centers - are failing spectacularly to meet that need. For example:
The FBI has such a serious shortfall in the number of available Arabic translators that it has 120,000 hours of pre-September 11th "chatter" still undeciphered.
The dearth of Americans trained in relevant regional languages is so acute that law enforcement and intelligence communities have been forced to "outsource" the work to foreign nationals, including some of uncertain reliability.
In particular, there is concern regarding the accuracy of the translation by foreign nationals of critical wiretaps of organizations with suspected ties to Islamist terrorists.
Especially damaging is the radical politicization of universities, characterized by the routine abuse of the role of "educator," as well as by the quiet but consistent suppression of professorial dissent. The traditional American belief in the universal values of freedom and democracy is widely rejected on today's campus.
In fact, many of the professors who benefit most from the federal government's Title VI funding make no secret of their hostility toward this country's government and its policies and, in some cases, their sympathy for our foes. Unfortunately, such professors routinely use the classroom to preach politics.
As a result, taxpayers are underwriting an academic industry that actively discourages American students from properly understanding the war effort.
In fact, the core premise of so-called post-colonial theory is that it is immoral for a scholar to put his knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service of American power.
Due to this pattern of radical indoctrination, taxpayer-funded Middle East and other regional studies programs consistently produce students unable or unwilling to provide the skills the nation needs at this critical moment.
Contributors: Dr. Michael Rubin and Sarah Stern
What Needs To Be Done
A. Enlist the State Department
1. The President must go beyond the leadership changes he has made to date in Foggy Bottom. He and Dr. Rice need to install, in the State Department and its foreign embassies, a cadre of high-ranking officials who are committed to supporting the President's agenda.
2. Institute a "Goldwater-Nichols" reform for State. Excessive power is concentrated in the State Department's regional bureaus, which have traditionally exercised undue influence over policy and personnel decision-making within the Department. The Defense Department once faced a similar problem. Prior to the implementation two decades ago of legislation known as Goldwater-Nichols, professional success in the military meant serving entirely in one's own branch of the armed forces. A similar approach to the assignment of FSOs could help lessen the parochialism - and clientitis - associated with the predominance of the regional bureaus.
3. No more "business as usual." Such personnel initiatives will, of course, require changes in the way business is done today, and will therefore be resisted by Foreign Service officers and the American Foreign Service Association (which serves as the sole bargaining agent for 23,000 active and retired officers). Yet the need for change is clear.
B. Marginalize the United Nations
The United Nations as presently constituted is now - and will remain - an instrument of political warfare, wielded by enemies of the Free World. The UN is not merely resistant to the sort of systemic change that might bring it into closer alignment with its founding principles of protecting and promoting freedom. Such changes are, as a practical matter, impossible. Consequently, the United States, joined by other freedom-defending nations, should adopt an alternative approach:
1. We must stop legitimating the UN and deferring to its assertion of higher moral authority. Particularly in time of war, the Free World cannot afford to allow an organization dominated by the Un-Free to be the arbiter of our security, let alone the determinant of what we do to safeguard it.
There are activities the UN performs (notably, in the humanitarian relief area) whose continued US funding might be justified. American contributions to the UN should be earmarked for these limited purposes, however.
We need to stop turning a blind eye to Secretary General Kofi Annan's undisguised anti-Americanism and his unhelpfulness in the War for the Free World.
Under no circumstances should the US government or its citizens agree to or be obligated to pay international taxes of any kind.
2. Create a new organization: the "Free Nations." US leadership, prestige, and resources should, instead, be directed towards establishing a new entity for the defense of the Free World. Such an organization would have real moral standing, would represent the best aspirations of mankind, would give force and effect to the sentiments imbedded in the UN Charter and UN Declaration on Human Rights, and would provide a ready basis for forming coalitions for the defense of the Free World.
3. Stop thinking of the world's oceans, international commerce, outer space, and the internet as so-called "global commons" to be turned over to UN organizations. The idea of a socialist bureaucracy administering an invaluable and delicately structured resource - such as the internet - is an obvious non-starter. No less unwelcome are similar initiatives in other areas vital to American national security, economic interests, and sovereignty.
C. Recruit Academia
For American diplomacy, military, and intelligence services to function effectively during this War for the Free World, steps must to be taken to change the attitudes - and perhaps the personnel - associated with the politicized university system. The following are the sorts of steps a War Footing will require be adopted to ensure that country develops the knowledge and skills required to understand, confront, and defeat America's enemies:
1. Revise the Tenure System.
2. Revise the Hiring Process. In order to prevent academia from becoming a wasteland of "group think," government-funded universities must break the monopoly of the hiring process.
3. Cultivate Foreign Language Experts. A priority must be placed on the rigorous study and mastery of relevant foreign languages.
4. Foster Students' Field Research. Federally funded curricula should ensure that regional studies address the world as it is, not just politicized imaginings about foreign peoples, cultures, and religions.
5. Refuse Foreign Funding. Too many universities hesitate to offer programs sponsored by U.S. government agencies, but happily accept money from foreign states whose interests are inimical to US standards of democracy, liberalism, and human rights. The absence of foreign funding for regional centers and other foreign studies programs should become the hallmark of unbiased, neutral scholarship.
6. Ground Students in the American tradition. Our regional studies programs must ground American students in an accurate appreciation of America. It is unacceptable to spend federal tax dollars to support curricula that amount to little more than indoctrination in a skewed and vehemently anti-American view of this country and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment