A wiser use of his time: Secretary of State John Kerry, here windsurfing in better days, is headed off to Europe and the Middle East. (AFP/Getty Images)
On Sunday, new Secretary of State John Kerry starts a tour of nine countries in Europe and the Middle East; the State Department calls it a “listenting tour.”
Yet, while listening is part of diplomacy, it can’t substitute for policy, especially in the case of the only superpower. Leaders of smaller nations might need the occasional “listening” trip to brush up their knowledge of issues and regions, but a superpower is supposed to have eyes and ears everywhere all the time, thanks to a vast and expensive diplomatic network.
That Kerry might need an educational tour is doubly puzzling, since he’s spent five years chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Most of the people he’ll see have already met and talked with him on several occasions.
Now they’d like to hear what Kerry has to say on issues: They want to know whether the United States is interested in and capable of developing a coherent foreign policy.
For the past four years (notwithstanding Hillary Clinton’s attempts at make-believe diplomacy), the Obama administration has danced around issues in an elliptic exercise in strategic retreat. President Obama has made speeches on issues, then shunned dealing with them. US foreign policy today is shrouded in a fog of contradictions.
Kerry’s stopovers in London, Berlin, Paris and Rome are nothing but photo-ops to foster the illusion of action. The Europeans have already made it clear they expect little from the Obama administration. Several of them, notably Britain and France, are trying to fill part of the gap left by the US retreat.
The Middle Eastern capitals that Kerry is scheduled to visit are no less concerned about the American absence. The region faces three key issues.
The first is Iran’s ambition to “export” its Khomeinist revolution and project power through its nuclear project. Last week, the office of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei published a letter to Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi inviting him to adopt the “model of Islamic development” in preference to “godless systems” marketed by Western democracies.
The second concerns the future of Syria and, because of Iran’s heavy involvement in propping up the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, is linked with the first.
The third issue centers on the objective alliance that the Obama administration has forged with the Muslim Brotherhood. The prospect of a Middle East dominated by the Brotherhood’s Arab and Turkish branches terrifies the region’s democratic forces and also causes unease among Washington’s traditional allies, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Many in the region ask if Obama wants to sacrifice putative democratic partners and traditional allies at the altar of the deal it’s made with the Brotherhood.
There’s also concern that Obama might spend his second term kicking the Iranian can down the road. That would suit Iran fine, since it’s getting closer to the “threshold” of being able to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Recent statements by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Kerry and Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel have persuaded Tehran that Washington is still chasing the mirage of a “grand bargain” with the mullahs.
Kerry’s position on Syria is the subject of even greater suspicion in the region. In 2009-2010, as Assad was putting his killing machine into high gear, Kerry made five visits to Damascus, forging a friendship with the despot. Kerry’s wife, Maria Teresa Heinz, reinforced the ties by befriending Asma al-Akhras, Assad’s wife. Kerry helped Assad recruit a number of American intellectuals close to the Democrats to pen articles and op-eds in favor of the despot and his wife. Vogue even featured Asma in a cover story, labeling her “Rose of the Desert.”
Kerry now says all this was prompted by a desire to promote peace. He also calls it a bipartisan effort, since Hagel joined him on two visits. Yet senior officials in the “Friends of Syria” bloc — 100 countries that support the popular uprising — worry that Kerry’s appointment might have encouraged Assad to toughen his stance.
Days after the Senate confirmed Kerry, Assad gave interviews boasting about “imminent victory” and reversed his pledge to not contest the presidential election in 2014, asserting his “right to serve again.”
Of course, Assad may be delusional. Kerry is chiefly interested in his own career; if he sees that Assad is a dead horse, he won’t hesitate to join the crowd whipping him. In any case, even if Kerry wanted to save Assad, the United States no longer has the will and the moral authority needed too pull off such a miracle.