Dangerously deceiving eye of the storm? Stage set for reverses

BY: Frank Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times, October 19, 1994

Slowly but steadily, a new party line is taking form: Believe it or not, Bill Clinton is a crack foreign policy wonk, after all.

Prominent figures in the national press corps have taken up this theme. For example, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on Oct. 13:

"The indications are that the Clinton administration is up to the challenge [of crafting a durable diplomatic solution to the latest crisis with Iraq]. His foreign policy team is acting suspiciously competent — and when it comes to Bosnia, responsibly as well. Yet the impression persists that Mr. Clinton is to foreign policy what a bull is to a china shop. Given his earlier vacillations on Bosnia, China, Haiti (remember the Harlan County) and North Korea, no doubt the president came by his reputation honestly. Maybe a re-evaluation is in order."

Also on Oct. 13, Mr. Cohen’s colleague at The Post, Mary McGrory, propounded the same theme in the context of President Clinton’s successes to date in Haiti. In an column pointedly headlined, "Ingrates Snub a Winner," she assailed in equal measure Republicans for refusing to acknowledge a triumph and Democrats for continuing to "flee" from Mr. Clinton.

The most striking example of the phenomenon, however, is Owen Harries, the editor of the respected journal the National Interest, who wrote in the Oct. 10 edition of the New Republic:

"Maybe Clinton’s foreign policy is not an unmitigated disaster; or even a disaster at all. … In fact, in terms of substance, the main policies followed by this administration have mostly been sound, or (since their ultimate outcome is yet unknown) at least reasonable and defensible."

To be sure, such accolades are generally accompanied by bet-hedging caveats. "Terrible things can still happen [in Haiti]," writes Miss McGrory. "Events in Haiti and Iraq have yet to play out," writes Mr. Cohen. And Mr. Harries writes about Haiti (and before the latest dust-up in Iraq), "there will inevitably be complications in a tricky transition."

Still, the notion that the Clinton administration has actually performed competently in international affairs is sufficiently pernicious to warrant a firm and definitive response: Nonsense.

The best that can be said about Mr. Clinton’s various foreign initiatives is that we are in the eye of the storm. Appearances that the United States has made a difficult but successful passage and arrived at calmer waters are virtually certain to be proven dangerously deceiving. Consider just a few of the barometric indicators of our generation’s "Gathering Storm" — a term used by Winston Churchill to describe the experience of the interwar period:

• The United States has squarely embraced the sticky Haitian mess. The alternative to a national bloodletting there is a long-term U.S. military commitment for which few Americans have any appetite. Either way, the fulfillment of what was, nominally, the primary objective — restoring Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power — will shortly be recognized as the relatively easy part, setting us up for unappetizing choices and onerous responsibilities.
• As predicted in this space last week, Saddam Hussein’s move against Kuwait is paying dividends for the Butcher of Baghdad. Russia and France are openly opposing U.S. efforts to prevent a repetition. By implication, any unilateral American action against Saddam would shatter not only the Gulf war coalition but also such support as remains for international sanctions. An expensive, long-term commitment of sizable U.S. forces in the region would appear to be the only alternative to being yo-yoed at will by the Iraqi despot. Even if the problem with Iraq were actually resolved, moreover, the United States has done little to prepare for the strategic consequences of an incipient economic meltdown in Iran.
• "The deal" just struck with North Korea is not going to end the crisis there — or discourage others from pursuing nuclear ambitions as a means of obtaining more favorable treatment from the United States. Like every deal before it, Pyongyang will renege on this one, in whole or in part, pocketing for example, diplomatic relations and trade concessions without actually ending its nuclear weapons program. Faced with such a prospect, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and others will have, as a practical matter, no choice but to bring on line their own nuclear capabilities.
• Speaking of meltdowns, the Balkan catastrophe is about to enter a new and far more dangerous phase. The latest failure of the "Contact Group" to follow through on threats against Serb aggressors will translate into the most desperate winter yet for Sarajevo and other so-called "safe havens." Meanwhile, increasingly transparent Greek designs against Macedonia and Albania greatly increase the prospects for the long expected wider war.

In short, the stage has been set — in no small measure thanks to the sustained incompetence and other failures of the Clinton foreign policy — for serious reverses for U.S. interests around the globe. This danger is only increased by kowtowing in Beijing and accommodation toward Moscow. While pundits may opine otherwise, Americans had better batten the hatches; there are unsteady hands at the helm and plenty of rough sailing ahead.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the director of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.