http://www6.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2004-11-17#
SBS Television Dateline November 17, 2004
Dr Michael McKinley Interview Yesterday's resignation of Colin Powell as US Secretary of State was widely anticipated. His replacement, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, has played a key role in shaping America's current hardline foreign policy. Whether international relationships, damaged in the first Bush administration, can be repaired may depend on her willingness to favour diplomacy over force. Tonight, to discuss the foreign policy ramifications of the new appointment, Dateline is joined by Dr Michael Fullilove of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and in Canberra, Dr Michael McKinley, an international relations expert at the Australian National University.
MARK DAVIS: Thanks to both of you for joining us. Firstly, to you, Michael McKinley, how will history view Colin Powell?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY, ANU: I think if a critical bunch of historians get hold of Colin Powell's record they will say he's probably one of the most overrated people in American public life at the start of the 21st century. He's been presented as a black Caesar, as a moderate, as somebody who was trying to speak truth and rationality to the neo-conservatives in the Bush inner sanctum, but he was highly ineffective and in fact he lent them legitimacy by staying on instead of resigning at some point when he could have done so strategically.
MARK DAVIS: Well Michael Fullilove, Colin Powell certainly built most of his career on the strength of his personal reputation. Is that reputation as strong as it once was?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE, LOWY INSTITUTE: Well, certainly if you judge by the tenor of the comments coming from leaders around the world, he is still held in very high regard in the international community. I think most of those would say that Michael's judgment is a little harsh, that he was a voice of moderation in an otherwise fairly ideological American administration and he emerged from the Iraqi embrolio better than most of his rivals in the administration. That's not to say he's had a perfect tenure but I see him more as an impressive figure than Michael does.
MARK DAVIS: Was he just playing good cop to the bad cops of Rumsfeld and Rice and co?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: If you mean by that was he playing a game to fool the rest of the world, I don't that's right. Think what we've seen in the last four years is what we've seen in many administrations in the 20th century. The Rosevelt administration is the exempla, that is, serious disagreements, bizzantine feuds, intrigues and battles between the various departments and the constituencies they represent. Powell fought his corner and in the end he was less successful than winning some of the turf battles than other characters but I think some of his positions will be vindicated by history.
MARK DAVIS: Well Michael McKinley, he certainly did seem to be the odd man out of this administration. Do you not see any difference between him and the others?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: Yes I do. He certainly was the odd man out but the problem is you can only be the odd man out for a certain period. After that, you owe it to your principles to actually resign. Or if you stay on, then you must accept that you have lent legitimacy to actions that you otherwise despise. If you look at Colin Powell's history from the time in which he wrote the first report which whitewashed the events at Meeli through to where he gave testimony which was entirely unreliable, that is to say dishonest to the Iran contra-commission through to the way in which he undermined two central planks as - two central planks in Bill Clinton's election campaign, namely the inclusion of the homosexuals in the United States military and the supply of arms to Bosnia. This man has a record, actually, of sacrificing principle and he doesn't seem to understand that as the first black chairman of the joint chiefs, he owed it to the President to actually behave in a manner which was consistent with his constitutional position.
MARK DAVIS: But doesn't it seem like he did seem to other that advice? If you look at Bob Woodward's books he's constantly portrayed as offering a much more sober advice than anyone else in that administration?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: Well, of course Bob Woodward is Colin Powell's ventriloquist dummy. The books are basically Powell's revelations to Bob Woodward. The problem is at all of these time when these objections were being made, as soon as Powell realised that it was an unpopular point of view, he resolved from the position and agreed to go with the flow.
MARK DAVIS: Michael Fullilove?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Well I guess I would make two points. The first is that unlike the British and the Australian system, the Americans don't have the same tradition of cabinet officers resigning, so I think that's a first point to make. Secondly, my own view is that the fact that Colin Powell is a black American shouldn't impose any extra responsibilities on him. I mean he's a highly distinguished soldier and was a highly distinguished soldier and statesman. I think he had the same responsibility as anyone else in 'foggy bottom' in the state department would have had.
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: Not quite there, Michael, not quite there. If you go back to the desegregation of the United States armed forces in the late 1940s under Truman. That was resisted by people like McCarthur who wanted to fight his own private war.
MARK DAVIS: Let's not go back too far Michael McKinley, I think the interesting period for most of us is this Iraq period where he played a very significant role in. Do you think he failed to please anyone, to his opponents his UN speech left his personal reputation in tatters. To the hawks, he was a troublesome wimp, if you like. Do you think he ultimately failed to please either camp?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: Yeah, I think he did because he sacrificed his own principles and yet was found to be far too soft, far too maliable, far too open to foreign representations by the inner sank tum of the Bush Administration so he lost out on both fronts.
MARK DAVIS: Michael Fullilove.
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Look, I think the interesting question, you mentioned the two camps. The interesting question is what will hap now, now that Colin Powell has gone. Which camp will emerge as the dominant camp. I think that's the interesting question.
MARK DAVIS: We'll get there. We've got five minutes but we'll move to the other person who offered his resignation was Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage. Now he's been widely portrayed as a great friend of Australia, a man with interests here. Is he a loss to this country that he's no longer in the administration?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Well, Armitage was somebody who had a very long history with Australia. He knew Australia very well, he had a lot of Australian friends. He put Australia's case within the counsels in Washington very clearly and very strongly. That's why he was referred to sometimes as the minister for Australia, if you like, within Washington. But I wouldn't overemphasise the significance of that personnel change. We know that there is a very close personal relationship between the two principals in the relationship, between Prime Minister Howard and President Bush. We've seen their generous comments to each other. Mr Howard's decision to endorse President Bush's re-election as President of the United States. And I think the relationship rests on two pillars, one is the fundamental strategic value to both country of the alliance. The fact that for us America is a powerful ally, for America Australia is a reliable ally. And secondly the gloss that's added between the personal relationship between the two leader. So I don't think myself that the resignation of a particular deputy secretary of state will make a significance difference to the alliance.
MARK DAVIS: I'll move on from Richard Armitage and get a quick comment from Michael McKinley. It does seem though that many commentators have put great value upon Richard Armitage. A lot of journalists like referring to him as Rich, as if his their best friend. Is he a loss in your opinion?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: It depends on who takes his place and I suspect it might be taken by John Bolton. That really is a choice for me between two thugs. I think Armitage was a thug but I think Bolton is an even greater thug.
MARK DAVIS: Why is he is a thug?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: Armitage's attitude was that the world was manikean, that you couldn't pick and choose your national interest inside the alliance relationship. Something which I believe is total nonsense. He's also on record as saying in his confirmation hearings before the United States Senate in 2001, that he was partial to a little bit of killing. I find that attitude to be totally inappropriate.
MARK DAVIS: Alright, we will move on. Condoleezza Rice, no surprise in her appointment but what will it signify to you, Michael Fullilove?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Well look, this is an interesting question. I mean I see that most of the commentators are presenting Dr Rice as a hawk and their saying that this indicates that the forces of - the muscular forces, I guess, within the Republican administration are likely to continue, that we're going to see more unilateralism and regime change but this time perhaps without the handbrake applied by Colin Powell. But I think I'd take a more measured approach and a more wait and see approach for a couple of reasons. First of all we don't know what Dr Rice will turn out to be as a secretary of State.
MARK DAVIS: We've got a decent idea of her political personality. She's known as the warrior princess by repute in the White House.
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: But what a lot of people don't know is her mentors in her early careers tend to be the conservative realists like Colin Powell himself and indeed like Brent Skocroft. Secondly, once she moves to the State department, we'll see whether that has an impact. There's an old adage that says where you stand depends on where you sit. Once she's in the state department she might be influenced by the diplomats she's working with. I think there are a couple of other factors also beyond Condoleezza Rices' appointment that mean we shouldn't rule out the possibility of a more moderate second Bush term of at least a Bush term of consolidation.
MARK DAVIS: Are we in for a more moderate second term?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: I doubt it very much. President Bush has been saying that he earned capital in the election campaign and he intends to spend it. If you look at who he's replaced the attorney-general with Alberto Gonzalez, a person of very questionable judicial integrity, I do not see why a president running for history in his second period when he never has to face election again, is going to run as a moderate. I do believe that what we're going to see is further shaking up and we've seen indications of that already in the Central Intelligence Agency and in Rice's claim that she wants a complete cleaning out of the State Department's Liberals.
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: It's true President Bush will never have to face electors again but he will have to face historians and I think President Bush will realise that his reputation as a foreign policy president will come down to whether Iraq is a success, or at least whether it's not a failure. And that's why I think the administration will spend a lot of their capital, the capital that Michael referred to, on making the best go they can of Iraq. I also think if I can just finish this, that the US military is very stretched at the moment in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think that ideology has been to some extent discredited by the Iraq situation and there are some examples of those if we can go into if you like. For those reason, although we don't know how it will turn out and one speech by President Bush or one appointment this way won't resolve the question, I'm actually persuaded that we're likely to see some sort of consolidation this term.
MARK DAVIS: An appointment is significant. Condoleezza Rice signals more of the same. Michael McKinley, in your opinion is America now entrenched in Iraq and too busy to look elsewhere or are, as the President says, is there more capital to be spent?
DR MICHAEL McKINLEY: I think both are true and Michael is right to say that there are serious limitations on US military power. The problem is that the United States has to stay in Iraq because if it leaves it will be humiliated. If it stays it will haemorrhage. The question that we should deal with at the moment, I think, is who Condoleezza Rice is going to have with her and that's why I come back to John Bolton because I think John Bolton has in his ideas one of the great nightmares of Australian foreign policy and that is his attitudes towards China and Taiwan.
MARK DAVIS: Let's move on to those, a couple of issues North Korea, Iran, Taiwan and China itself, will Condoleezza Rice have the ability to deal with these issues and to bring Europe back on side with America? I mean, could this have been an opportunity to put a new face in patch up some bad relations?
DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Well look, if I can just make one quick point on what Michael said. Michael mentioned other appointments. I think that's relevant. I think if John Bolton is appointed to deputy secretary of State that will send a signal but there are other appointments we have to watch as well. We might note Paul Wolfowitz hasn't been appointed to either of the roles that people were talking about, State or National Security Advisor. I think he's right but it's not only the deputy secretary of state position we have to look at. In terms of what Condoleezza Rice can do, I think one advantage she'll have is that she will be seen around the world as speaking for the President in a way that Colin Powell has not. So I think that's one advantage she has. I think she's signalled she wants to reach out to some allies. In terms of China, you mentioned China, I tend to think that we've seen a learning process in the Bush Administration on China. They came to office redefining China as a strategic competitor and yet we've seen particularly obviously in light of the war against terror, we've seen a much more pragmatic approach. Condoleezza Rice visited Beijing twice, I believe, as national security adviser. So I tend not to see her replacement of Colin Powell as an indication we're going to get a reversion to an ideological approach to China.
MARK DAVIS: We'll have to leave it there but thanks very much to both of you for joining us.