INTRODUCTIONAs your Administration undertakes the Herculean task of restoring America’s footing and leadership abroad, some countries will be able to help-or-hurt-more than others. Turkey has the potential to place high on either list.
Under your predecessor, US-Turkish relations have been chronically dysfunctional, punctuated by periodic near and real disasters. We have to do better. That will require prompt steps to correct conceptual and structural handicaps that have harmed our approach to Turkey for decades, but which have become acute in recent years.
People wave Turkish national flags as they visit the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
WASHINGTON — The Center for a New American Security, a small think tank here with generally middle-of-the-road policy views, is rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration.
When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center, which was founded by a pair of former Clinton administration officials in February 2007.
The think tank’s central role in the transition effort suggests that its positions — which include rejecting a fixed timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq — will get a warm reception within the new administration.
Richard Danzig (above) and James Steinberg and Susan Rice (below), who all have ties to the Center for a New American Security, are contenders for key positions in the Obama administration.
Michele Flournoy, who co-founded the center with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official, now serves as its president. She is one of two top members of Mr. Obama’s defense transition team and is likely to be offered a high-ranking position at the Pentagon. Some Obama advisers say she could eventually be tapped as the nation’s first female defense secretary.
Wendy Sherman, co-head of the Obama State Department transition team, also serves on the center’s board of advisers and is expected to land a high-ranking post. Richard Danzig, a front-runner for defense secretary, is on the think tank’s board of directors. Susan Rice and James Steinberg, both of whom are on Mr. Obama’s short list for national security adviser, serve on its board of advisers.
Although most of the center’s staffers are Democrats, its boards include prominent Republicans, and its policy proposals have largely sought to find a middle ground between standard Democratic and Republican positions. On Iraq, for instance, Ms. Flournoy helped write a June report that called for reducing the open-ended American military commitment in Iraq and replacing it with a policy of “conditional engagement” there.
Significantly, the paper rejected the idea of withdrawing troops on the sort of a fixed timeline Mr. Obama espoused during the campaign. Mr. Obama has in recent weeks signaled that he was willing to shelve the idea.
At least half a dozen of the think tank’s policy experts — including John Nagl, a retired Army colonel and a counterinsurgency specialist — are expected to get tapped for midlevel national security positions.
The potential departures mean that the center could be a victim of its own success. “The challenge will be convincing our board, our funders and our staff that we are a going concern and will remain that way into the future,” said Jim Miller, its senior vice president.
Mr. Miller said he is confident the center would weather the departures. Other officials said the center is planning to recruit departing Bush administration officials to fill some vacancies. The center’s budget comes mainly from foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,and it also gets some government money to study particular issues.
New presidents regularly raid Washington think tanks for experts and policy ideas. The Reagan administration drew heavily from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation after the 1980 election, while the Clinton administration hired from the left-leaning Brookings Institution.
More recently, staffers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute took senior positions in the Bush administration and drafted some of its signature policies, including the “surge” strategy for Iraq.
The success of conservative think tanks sparked the creation of some left-leaning counterparts, most prominently the Center for American Progress. Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta started it in 2003 with tens of millions of dollars from wealthy liberals.
“The success of Brookings begat AEI. The success of AEI begat Heritage. And the success of Heritage begat CAP and CNAS,” said Murray Weidenbaum, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who wrote a book on Washington think tanks.
Mr. Podesta is now running the Obama transition effort. He also serves on the CNAS board of directors of the Center for a New American Security, which Ms. Flournoy founded along with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official.
The security center remains a relatively small player, with an annual budget of less than $6 million and about 30 employees including support staff. By comparison, Brookings has more than 200 policy experts, while AEI has nearly 100 scholars and fellows.
Nonetheless, the security center enjoys an outsize public profile here, a function of its media savvy and ability to regularly attract high-profile public figures to its events. In September, it hosted Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, James Baker and two other former secretaries of state at a roundtable event that was carried on CNN. The event made news when all of the officials endorsed talks with Iran, an idea backed by then-candidate Mr. Obama but opposed by Republican challenger Sen. John McCain.
[Interestingly this “memo” appeared in a serious right-wing newspaper in UK- food for thought -h]
By Madeleine K. Albright
Congratulations on your success. You have won an impressive victory – but with that victory comes the responsibility to guide a troubled America in a world riven by conflict, confusion and hate. Upon taking office, you will face the daunting task of restoring America’s credibility as an effective and exemplary world leader.
Barack Obama's first job will be to re-establish respect for America
This cannot be accomplished merely by distancing yourself and your administration from the mistakes of George W. Bush. You must offer innovative strategies for coping with multiple dangers, including the global economic meltdown, two hot wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), al-Qaida, nuclear threats and climate change. In every realm, you will need to recruit a first-rate team of advisers, apply the principles of critical thinking and develop a coherent strategy with a clear connection between actions and results.
Your first job as president will be to re-establish the traditional sources of international respect for America: resilience, optimism, support for justice, and the desire for peace. As you recognised during your campaign, America’s good name has been tarnished. Your message to the world should be that the United States, though unafraid to act when necessary, is also eager to listen and learn.
That first step is important, but you will need to do much more.
Starting on Inauguration Day, you must strive to restore confidence in the economic soundness and financial stewardship of the United States. The October crash proved that our current leaders have lost their way. All eyes are now on you. Pick the right people; show discipline; stick to the rules you establish; and push for an economic system that rewards hard work, not greed.
Overseas, you should begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. If you hesitate, you will be forced _ by an evolving consensus within Iraq _ to do so nonetheless. By initiating the process and controlling the timing, you can steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders instead of allowing radicals to claim that they have driven us out.
The troops that remain as the redeployment proceeds should focus on further preparing Iraqi forces for command. Despite recent gains, the country is still threatened by sectarian rivalries. These have a long history and can be resolved only by Iraq’s own decision-makers. American troops cannot substitute for Iraqi spine. The time for transition is at hand.
In Afghanistan, an unsustainable stalemate has developed in which the majority of the population fears the Taliban, resents Nato and lacks faith in its government. Given the stakes, you may be tempted to “do more” in Afghanistan, but that alone would be a reaction, not a strategy.
Our own military admits that the current approach is not working. We cannot kill or capture our way to victory. We need more troops, but we also need a policy that corresponds to the aspirations and sensitivities of the local population. Under your leadership, Nato’s primary military mission should be to train Afghan forces to defend Afghan villages, and its dominant political objective should be to improve the quality of governance throughout the country.
Economic development is crucial, and you should encourage global and regional institutions to take the lead in building infrastructure and creating jobs. Diplomatically, you should concentrate on enhancing security co-operation between Islamabad and Kabul. Overall, allied efforts must go beyond killing terrorists to preventing the recruitment of cadre to replace them.
In addition to the Taliban, the reason we are in Afghanistan is al-Qaida, which remains an alien presence wherever it exists. Even its roots in Pakistan are not deep, and the failure of its leaders to articulate a positive agenda has reduced the allure of Bin Laden-style operations even to potential sympathizers. Al-Qaida, still dangerous, is beginning to lose the battle of ideas.
Targeted military actions remain essential, but you should avoid giving the many in the Muslim world who disagree with us fresh reason to join the ranks of those who are trying to kill us. This is, after all, an important distinction. Closing Guantánamo will help.
From the first day, you should also work to identify the elements of a permanent and fair Middle East peace. Cynics are fond of observing that support for peace will not pacify al-Qaida, but that is both obvious and beside the point. Your efforts can still enhance respect for American leadership in the regions where al-Qaida trawls for new blood.
Only effective regional diplomacy can persuade Israelis and Arabs alike that peace is still possible. In the absence of that hope, all sides will prepare for a future without peace, thereby validating the views of extremists and further complicating every aspect of your job.
The dangers radiating from the Middle East and Persian Gulf are sure to occupy you, but they should not consume all your attention. Just as an effective foreign policy cannot be exclusively unilateral, neither can it be unidimensional. You should devote more time and resources to regions, such as Latin America and Africa, that have been neglected.
As a leader in the global era, you must view the world through a wide lens. That is why I hope you will establish a new and forward-looking mission for our country: to harness the latest scientific advances to enhance living standards across the globe.
This initiative should extend to growing food, distributing medicine, conserving water, producing energy and preserving the atmosphere. It should include a challenge to the American public to serve as a laboratory for best environmental practices, gradually replacing mass consumption with sustainability as an emblem of the American way. Such a policy can serve the future by reducing our vulnerability to energy blackmail, while conveying a clearer and loftier sense of what the United States is all about.
Mr. President-Elect, the job once held by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and the Roosevelts will soon be yours. In years to come, you will be required to maintain your balance despite being shoved ceaselessly from every direction, and to exercise sound judgment amid the crush of events both predictable and shocking.
To justify our confidence in you, you must show confidence in us. End the politics of fear. Treat us like adults. Help us to understand people from distant lands and cultures. Challenge us to work together. Remind us that America’s finest hours have come not from dominating others but from inspiring people everywhere to seek the best in themselves.
Madeleine K. Albright was U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. She is the author of “Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership” (HarperCollins, 2008).
“Kyrgyzstan is located in the very heart of Central Asia, which makes it possible to influence Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and even China. To have this region under control is the main aim of the U.S. State Department’s current policy,” independent experts of the Russian media observer Russian Peacekeeper said.
Today Condoleezza Rice is the main idea generator in issues of the “Central Asian states’ domestication”. Here she has overbid even her teacherZbigniew Brzezinski. Kyrgyzstan, in her eyes, is a key to settling all tensions in Central Asian region. If Kyrgyzstan is a ‘key’, it should be ‘kept in a pocket’. It is a long-studied method.
“It is enough to remember that before the ‘tulip revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan, staff of the U.S. embassy in Bishkek counted at least 30-40 persons. This number grew dramatically right before the revolution, and now counts up to 150 workers. It is strange why the United States has such a large-numbered diplomatic mission in a country, which is way far from the world leading states,” the experts wonder.
Madeleine Albright (L) introduces Dmitry Medvedev (R) at the G20 Summit
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright and an ex-Republican lawmaker on Saturday stood in for president-elect Barack Obama in meeting world leaders attending the G20 summit on the economic crisis.
Obama himself stayed away from the Washington summit of the Group of 20 biggest economies, but foreign delegations have been keen to open channels to the Democrat succeeding President George W. Bush next January 20.
Albright and former Iowa congressman Jim Leach said in a statement that they “held constructive meetings on behalf of president-elect Obama and vice president-elect (Joseph) Biden” with delegations from 15 countries plus the European Commission, as well as United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
They included leaders, finance ministers or top bureaucrats from Brazil, Britain, China, Germany, Japan and Russia, among others. They spoke with the French delegation by telephone.
Albright and Leach said Obama saw the summit as “an important opportunity to seek a coordinated response to the global financial crisis.”
“We also conveyed president-elect Obama’s determination to continuing to work together on these challenges after he takes office in January,” they said, adding that they would brief Obama and Biden at the conclusion of their meetings.
Source: www.google.com/hostednews/afp, 16 November 2008
He was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, a hawk in terms of foreign policy. In an interview with Stern magazine Zbigniew Brzezinski explains why President-elect Obama reminds him of John F. Kennedy, what he expects from the new administration’s foreign policy – and why the US will demand a greater European military commitment in Afghanistan
Dr. Brzezinksi, as one of Washington’s ultimate insiders you have witnessed many presidential elections. How did you experience Obama’s victory last Tuesday?
I was with friends, watching television. I had predicted his win. But when it actually really happened, it was exactly 11.01 p.m., I was very moved.
You? During your time as National Security Advisor, you were regarded to be one of the toughest politicians ever.
I saw the faces of so many citizens, black and white, reacting to their choice. And it just dramatized to me, that this was really a historically significant election. We might witness the birth of a 21st century America. In fact, this election could define America as the prototype of an eventual global society.
And why should this be America?
I cannot imagine another country, neither in Europe, neither in Asia, which could have elected someone as uniquely different as Barack Obama is. Barack Hussein Obama is accepted and cherished, really cherished, because he epitomizes the unique diversity of American society and shares the dominant values of that society.
Which are?
Racial equality, a basic commitment to democracy, a notion of elementary social justice. The notion that some people should not be allowed to be as poor as they are – and that some are not entitled be quite as rich as they think they can be.
Don’t you expect a little too much from a relatively inexperienced Senator from Illinois?
I met him last year, and he made the best impression on me of anyone since John F. Kennedy.He is better equipped in intellect and temperament for the highest office than anyone I can think of in recent memory. He is very different from most American politicians.
What makes him so unique?
A kind of intellectual self-confidence, which reflects real intelligence, not arrogance. A friendliness – but with a distance and a dignity. A little patrician, almost. And a calculating rationality. He does not wave the do-gooders flag. He is an idealist, but not an ideologue. He knows, that compromises will be needed.
Will Obama be the President of a superpower in decline?
No. That’s nonsense and often said with a lot of schadenfreude. The matter of fact is, that the era of American superpower stupidity is over, the time of self-isolation. Under President Bush, we acted arrogant, unilateralist and – worst of all – driven by fear. A culture of fear was cultivated by this administration, which replaced the Statue of Liberty as a symbol for America with Guantanamo. America has lost its confidence. This is one of the worst legacies of the Bush era. But that will come to an end now, very quickly.
Obama already claims the dawn of a new American leadership. How could he achieve this while the country faces the worst economical crisis since 70 years?
He will inherit a grim reality. But the painful financial crisis also teaches us an important lesson: without America the world is in trouble. If America is declining, the rest of the world is falling apart. And have no illusions: the German economy will not recover without an American recovery. America can recover without Germany. At the same time, we understand: we have to cooperate with the world in order to do well.
What will be the biggest foreign policy challenges for the new President?
Afghanistan is certainly one of them. There, for he time being, we would need to deploy more troops. But more soldiers are not the solution. The solution is a demilitarization of our engagement.
By negotiating with the Taliban, as Obama already indicated?
By negotiating wit the various groups of Taliban. We should be able to reach local and regional arrangements with them. If they would stop al-Qaeda activities, for example, we would locally disengage.
You are promoting a de facto withdrawal of Nato troops?
No. Nato has to continue our military activities in the meantime. And if we are serious about our alliance and about consultations, we have to be also serious about sharing burdens. You cannot have arrangements, where some soldiers risk their lives day and night and some soldiers cannot even go on patrols at night. That is not an alliance.
Will Obama expect more engagement from Europe, Germany?
The American people expect this. If the Europeans want to give us only nice advise, but expect us to do the heavy lifting – then don’t expect America necessarily to listen to these advises. Europeans will no longer have the alibi of Bush’s bad policy. But let’s be clear: there are no alibis for us any more, either. We will have to consult, share decisions and cooperate.
Russia’s President greeted Obama by announcing he would deploy short range missiles along the Baltic Sea.
Yes, but I think we can relax.
Relax?
Russia is a country with enormous problems. Its leaders should know, that Russia cannot isolate itself from the world or base its foreign policy on the assertion that it is entitled to an imperialist sphere of influence. It is baffling to me, how unintelligent its leaders are. Self-isolation will be destructive for Russia, not for us.
Would you suggest relaxing also in regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions?
We need a more realistic, a more flexible and sensible approach. We should negotiate; we might negotiate even without preconditions. A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. This new diplomatic approach could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. This would be a sensible path.
