The Summit of Isolation (NY Times Sunday Editorial)

New York Times ^ | March 16, 2003 | Editorial Board

[Dog Gone]

hree men meeting on an Atlantic island seems an apt symbol for the failure of the Bush administration to draw the world around its Iraq policy. That's not the intended message of President Bush's meeting today in the Azores with Prime Ministers Tony Blair of Britain and José María Aznar of Spain, but it's hard to avoid that impression. In what appears to be the final days before an American invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bush is taking time to consult with two loyal allies and, ostensibly, to decide if any realistic chance remains for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq. But the underlying diplomatic reality is bleak. Only a little more than four months since a unanimous Security Council backed American demands for disarming Saddam Hussein, Washington's only sure council supporters are Britain, Spain and Bulgaria.

President Bush was dealt a bad hand by others. Baghdad refused to provide the active cooperation that alone could have brought inspections to a swift and successful conclusion. France has created enormous problems through its unwillingness to back up inspections with tight deadlines and a credible threat of force.

But the Bush administration's erratic and often inept diplomacy has made matters immeasurably worse. By repeatedly switching its goals from disarmament to regime change to broadly transforming the Middle East, and its arguments from weapons to Al Qaeda to human rights, the White House made many countries more worried about America's motives than Iraq's weapons. Public arm-twisting of allies like Turkey and Mexico backfired, as did repeated sniping at Hans Blix, one of the U.N.'s two chief arms inspectors.

Just this past week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld damagingly suggested that Washington didn't really need British military help, administration diplomats unhelpfully hedged their support for a British compromise proposal and Secretary of State Colin Powell further undercut London's efforts to win over undecided Security Council members by suggesting that Washington might soon withdraw the pending resolution without a vote.

Even now, diplomacy might be resuscitated if the administration made an all-out effort to seek broad consensus around the British concept of disarmament benchmarks and specific, achievable deadlines. Such an effort would require much greater American willingness to negotiate realistic deadlines and credible mechanisms for measuring Iraqi compliance than has yet been evident.

Instead, the Bush administration now gives every appearance of going through the motions of diplomacy as a favor to Mr. Blair without really believing in it. By allowing that perception to grow, Mr. Bush finds himself about to embark on an uncertain course of war and nation-building in one of the world's most dangerous and complex regions, with an alliance far too narrow for comfort.

[linn37]

Right its all Americas fault that France has thrown itself in with Saddam and Saddam has refused to disarm.

[Cicero]

As I recall, only four leaders met at Yalta. Was that a "summit of isolation" too?

In any case, I hope this meeting works out better than that one.

[Timesink]

I keep trying to read this, but I can't get past the first few sentences without hearing the sound of Howell Raines going "burbula-burbula-burbula-burbula-burbula-burbula" with his finger over his lips.

[Parley Baer]

May the next terrorist attack be at the door step of the New York Times. Parley

[mewzilla]

Baghdad refused to provide the active cooperation that alone could have brought inspections to a swift and successful conclusion.

Even now, diplomacy might be resuscitated if the administration made an all-out effort to seek broad consensus around the British concept of disarmament benchmarks and specific, achievable deadlines.

Note to the Times: Say what? Don't you guys ever read what you write?

[Chi-townChief]

Yalta was the "Summit of giveaways."

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

In what appears to be the final days before an American invasion of Iraq

Umm, that's an American-led invasion of Iraq. By the way, Mr. Raines can scarcely contain his glee at Bush's diplomatic "failures." I wish I still subscribed to that piece of fish-wrap, so I could once again experience the thrill of cancellation. Now, my only fun is when I'm solicited by a NY Slimes telemarketer and I get to explain to a nineteen-year-old cretin just exactly why I wouldn't have that liberal piece of crap littering my driveway. The usual response I get is "Duh!"

[GraniteStateConservative]

Even now, diplomacy might be resuscitated if the administration made an all-out effort to seek broad consensus around the British concept of disarmament benchmarks and specific, achievable deadlines.

Every one of the undecideds but France support deadlines. We need them to get a 60% majority. They won't vote for any resolution France has said it will veto. Therefore the NY Times' idea is DOA.

[Dog Gone]

And the bad thing is that they know it, but assume their readers don't.

[Milanese]

But the Bush administration's erratic and often inept diplomacy has made matters immeasurably worse. By repeatedly switching its goals from disarmament to regime change to broadly transforming the Middle East, and its arguments from weapons to Al Qaeda to human rights, the White House made many countries more worried about America's motives than Iraq's weapons. Public arm-twisting of allies like Turkey and Mexico backfired, as did repeated sniping at Hans Blix, one of the U.N.'s two chief arms inspectors.

Is there switching of goals? Why cannot there be more than one? Countires are worried about our motives? Which ones? What are their motives? Which ones are on our side? Turkey and Mexico doesn't have their own problems? Mexico doesn't try to twist our arm? Daily? Sniping at Blix - does he deserve it?

The anti-Bush maniacs twist, excuse, and spin every way they can. No matter if its false or mean.

[CyberAnt]

"realistic deadlines"

WHAT's UNREALISTIC ABOUT TWELVE (12) YEARS !!!!!!!!!

[Calvin Locke]

...an alliance far too narrow for comfort.

If Mr. Raines would keep his head out of his buttocks long enough to look around, he would see that the current alliance
doesn't include fairweather France. So, by historical standards, can reasonably be expected to get the
job done quickly, efficiently, and with as little loss of life to both the alliance and the unfortunates now terrorized
by Saddam and his enablers, Gunga Dan and Howell Raines.

[Terry Mross]

I worry that the entire world knows where Air Force One is going tomorrow. Does the Secret Service actually believe they can "sweep" the Atlantic well enough to stop SAMs? Anyone else get me drift?