Jon Kofas writes: There are multiple dangers of the Pentagon running U.S. foreign policy as Martin Storey points out by using the example of U.S. military assistance to Indonesia's armed forces, but the reality is that vice president Cheney wants it that way, and so it is. One danger of a Pentagon-run U.S. foreign policy is that the U.S. has recently isolated Putin's Russia which wants continued nuclear cooperation with Iran, which is not going to roll over and play dead when it comes to U.S. threats against Syria or North Korea, and which the U.S. needs to combat "international terrorism". As Bush begins his European tour to mend fences with France and Germany, the question for the EU is whether they want to provide legitimacy for U.S. foreign policy based on militarism, rather than diplomacy. Many analysts continue to point out that EU and U.S. foreign policy goals are similar, but they disagree on tactics. President Bush, however, will encounter EU opposition on U.S. goals. While the goal of the U.S. is to strengthen Israel and continue to divide and weaken Muslim nations that assert their sovereignty, that is not an EU goal. While the goal of the U.S. is to pursue containment and bolster authoritarian regimes disguised as "democracies" throughout the Third World simply because they have "elections", the EU prefers economic integration and systems of government that genuinely represent as much of the population as possible and that have policies in place to protect and promote popular interests. While the U.S. does not wish to move forward with international treaty obligations affecting the environment, the EU does. President Bush will come out with nice photo-ops, but on substance he will not return with very much at all. RH: We shall see. "Elections" are better than no elections. Tim Brown angrily answers Jon Kofas: Professor Kofas owes his views more to his imagination or virulent anti-Bush and anti-American commentators that to the facts. The Pentagon has not, does not and will not ever have a foreign policy different from that of the State Department. In fact, the State Department doesn't have its own foreign policy either. Both simply implement the foreign policies of the President. Neither does Mr. Kofas come even close to understanding the realities of US foreign policy, much as he would like to believe he does.
On legitimacy, the US does not require Europe to give it legitimacy not does Europe require the US to have legitimacy on its own;
On Israel, we are friends but also the leading force pushing Palestine towards separate nationhood;
Our policy is not to divide or weaken Muslim countries, but to strengthen the representative nature of their governments;
Our policy is not to bolster authoritarians but to urge them to become democracies;
On economic integration, Europe is not only not breaking new ground but is simply following the successful US model, albeit with a two century delay;
On legitimate elections, if one sector of an electorate voluntarily decides not to vote that does not destroy an election's legitimacy. If it did, the Basques could destroy the legitimacy of Spain at will;
the DOM/TOMS could do the same to France; the Walloons to Belgium; the Quebequois to Canada; the Maoris to New Zealand; the Muslims to India,; women to most of the world's democracies.
Nor is absolutely balanced representation for each and every minority required for a government to be legitimate. Women are not proportionally represented in the UK, Switzerland or Austria nor are dozens of minority groups throughout the democratic world. but that does not make these governments illegitimate. Need I go on? When a group is denied the right to vote that is one thing. But it is entirely different when a group has that right and chooses voluntarily not to exercise it. Unless, of course, you are just looking for excuses to condemn the US and/or Bush.
RH: The consensus of most informed people is that US foreign policy largely emanates from the Pentagon.
