This is an interesting one: Daniel Drezner finds the actions of the German government in stating what its foreign policy is to be "somewhat distasteful" as involving "the manipulation of foreign policy against a formal ally to provoke a change in government":
danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Using foreign policy to influence elections: I see the Germans have expressed their ballot preferences for the American ticket in the Financial Times:
Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government’s resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: “At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future].”
Mr Struck also welcomed Mr Kerry’s proposal that he would convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month's election.
Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. “This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference.”This manipulation of foreign policy against a formal ally to provoke a change in government is somewhat distasteful.
I don't see this. Struck's remarks strike me as of the "earth is round" variety. Of course the German government would attend a conference called by the American president (as long as that particular American president hasn't spent the last three years pissing on the German government); of course the German government would think that a conference where America's allies can present a common position is better than a bunch of bilateral talks where they can be pressured one by one; of course the German defense minister can envision circumstances in which Germany might send troops to Iraq; and of course such circumstances are very unlikely to come to pass if George W. Bush continues as president. Struck seems to me to be not "manipulating" German foreign policy, but rather saying what German foreign policy is--governed as it is by its enormous respect for the United States and its rational suspicion of George W. Bush.
Just because is convenient for the Bush administration to pretend that the world is flat doesn't make the German defense minister's statement that the earth is round a "manipulation of foreign policy." And his statement is not in any sense "against" the United States. When simply saying the way things are in the world today are viewed as attacks on George W. Bush... well, that's just an indication of how SNAFU the Bush presidency is.
Matthew Yglesias put it best:
Posted by DeLong at October 13, 2004 11:14 AM | TrackBackMatthew Yglesias: CIA Stuff: [T]here's something badly wrong with your candidate when making accurate descriptions of the present state of affairs in a foreign country is considered an efficacious way to torpedo your boy's reelection campaign. It's sort of like admitting that his whole presidency is based on a tissue of lies. Or worse -- delusions...
This manipulation of foreign policy against a formal ally to provoke a change in government is somewhat distasteful.
Venezuela?
Haiti?
Get out of my yard, Drezner!
Posted by: Something Polish at October 13, 2004 11:28 AMThe reason Daniel can use 'manipulation' is that the German government knows full well that under no conceivable scenario would they be providing significant troop levels in Iraq. Kerry talks about a substantial European commitment, and Germany hints that it might offer support troops under certain circumstances. The manipulation is in the fact that such a German commitment would be very small, and thus not what Kerry claims.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 13, 2004 11:37 AMWhat has been lost in the past 4 years of Bush
"diplomacy" is that there might be some possibility
of a genuine negotiation between 2 or more countries
where they would reach a compromise.
So yes, the starting point in the negotiation is
that the German government would prefer not to make
a substantial commitment of troops. But they would
also like to see more UN influence in Iraq, and to
have access to reconstruction contracts for German
companies. Nobody knows what the detailed outcome
of the negotiation would be - that's why we have
to actually talk, after all - but the US has
things to offer which might induce the Germans to
give more in return. We do share a common goal
of achieving at least stability in Iraq.
In Bush diplomacy on the other hand, the US is
absolutely right, and so it would be morally wrong
to ever offer any concessions in diplomacy,
so all that can happen is to shout at other
countries, tell them they're wrong, threaten
them, and occasionally bribe them with cash.
This tactic has never achieved any success in
negotiations, so Bush admirers now deny that
any tactics can achieve success in negotiations.
Now, now. Germany does not equal Europe.
Posted by: Brad DeLong at October 13, 2004 11:53 AMChancellor Schroeder has since said that "The position of Germany will not change. We will not send soldiers to iraq." For what it's worth, he had just come out of a meeting with Berlusconi.
Posted by: kharris at October 13, 2004 12:07 PMSomething Polish,
You forgot one of the finest examples of the Bush adimistration's high regard for democracy: the suggestion that the Turkish military disregard the democratic will of its elected representatives and participate in, or at least facilitate, the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: Lewis Carroll at October 13, 2004 12:11 PMSebastian is close to the mark: the United States will continue to do the heavy lifting in Iraq regardless of the results of the election.
(Of course, this is why it's so insulting to hear the Bush Administration congratulate itself on assembling such a grand coalition.)
Posted by: JR at October 13, 2004 12:21 PMSebastian,
Here's my read on Kerry's summit banter.
(1) He's trying to make Bush look like a bad diplomat. Undoubtedly a fair critique. The administration comes from an intellectual tradition that has contempt for deal-making, multilateralism, and international institutions. Bush probably takes the criticism as a complement.
(2) He's trying vainly to deliver a viable Iraq strategy that differs from the current course. Problem is, there isn't a viable Iraq strategy. So Kerry is setting himself up for a fall if elected, since voters will expect to much from internationalizing the occupation.
(3) He's suggesting a different approach to foreign policy in general, stressing traditional diplomacy and alliance management.
Posted by: JR at October 13, 2004 12:32 PMThat is good news, regardless of later story regarding Schroeder.
Perhaps some German foresters will also be deployed.
Posted by: wood turtle at October 13, 2004 02:47 PM