NEWT GINGRICH ON DIPLOMACY (!)
Below is a letter I sent to the journal Foreign Policy in response to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s article against the State Department. My letter will probably make more sense if you read Gingrich’s piece, entitled ‘Rogue State Department’, which you can do by clicking here. I enjoy Foreign Policy because its articles tend to be readable enough for the non-specialist without being dumbed down or unnuanced.





Editor:
Newt Gingrich’s attack on the State Department (FP, July/August 2003) made some interesting points but was significantly off the mark on others.

Gingrich is on the money when he says that “we can no longer accept a culture that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt, and ignores secret police forces.” In fact, the “left-wing nongovernmental organizations” he derides elsewhere in the piece have been calling for these changes for years, only to be told by the right that such appeasement was necessary for various ephemeral reasons. It’s heartening to see a conservative like Gingrich be won over to this progressive position.

He mentions a classified report by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research that allegedly contradicts the president’s view that democracy will easily take hold in Iraq. According to Gingrich, this demonstrates how the State Department is “out of sync” with the president’s vision.

This assertion is quite shocking. Is Gingrich seriously suggesting that intelligence should be manipulated to fit the president’s pre-arranged conclusions? Some think this mentality is already too prevalent in the White House, as the Iraq-Niger controversy might suggest. Too man ‘Yes Men’ are already spoiling the administration’s pot. Surely the new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive intervention relies upon the kind solid, unbiased analyses that the Gingrich disparages.

The former House speaker puts great emphasis on improving the State Department’s communications with the rest of the world. While fine in theory, this ignores that we communicate as much by what we do as by what we say.

Gingrich might state, “we can no longer accept a culture that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt, and ignores secret police forces.” But does he oppose our present alliance with a dictatorship like Pakistan, an alliance which President Bush has actively cultivated? How many countries antithetical to the culture Gingrich condemns took part in the “coalition of the willing”?

Will a Malian cotton farmer be convinced by American moralizing on the virtue of the free market capitalism, when American-subsidized cotton is driving him into further poverty?

Such dichtomies feed resentment of America far more than any lack of a communication stategy.

Actions really do speak much louder than words. Right now, many foreigners, including our closest allies, believe that “American values” are military adventurism, bullying and belligerence. This may not be the message Gingrich or any other American wants to present, but it’s the message that’s being received. And only a fundamental rethink and coordination of all aspects our foreign policy, not some slick public relations campaign, is going to change that perception. The best way we can transmit our values is to act on them. And not just when it’s convenient.

Sincerely,
[Me]