Observations on Government
June 13th, 2006Bloomberg is running a piece today asking if Newt Gingrich might be the beneficiary of 2006, whatever that may mean. To me, it’s a hack article, with a dubious standing in reality. Is Newt Gingrich a likely Presidential candidate? Not really, as it doesn’t seem to me like he would want to get back into politics after having been chased out by members of his own party and Larry Flynt. But, should he run, is he going to win the Presidency? Heaven, no. Look up the Newt Gingrich Cancer Story, and you’ll see just what I mean. Then take a look at his picture, and reflect on what Phil Gramm had to say when he ran for President in 1996: “I’m going to test whether or not a man as ugly as I can be elected in the day of television.”
He wasn’t. Know what I’m saying?
Big news today: Karl Rove apparently won’t be charged by Fitzgerald. What a shame that is, but I suppose it’s more of a testament to Fitzgerald’s integrity than anything else. He didn’t find anything explicitly criminal from Karl Rove, and instead of reaching for Starr and charges Karl Rove on something related to oral sex, he let it go. That’s because he’s a professional, although I do believe that Rove is probably guilty of something in this case. We’re in the courtroom of public opinion, after all.
Whenever I read an article from a former high-ranking member of a government, I wonder why they’re publishing their ideas in the newspaper instead of delivering them to the White House. You know, does Henry Kissinger really think his advice is more valuable to George Bush if relayed through the Washington Post — even though Bush doesn’t read, by his own admission? It’s something to think about, to be sure, and it makes you wonder at times if people merely write their op-eds to feed a sense of self-satisfaction instead of help the country. At the same time, it makes you wonder if the reason ex-officials have to publish their advice has to do with the current White House refusing to hear it in the first place, face-to-face. Whichever it is, Warren Christopher prompted that musing with his latest article on dealing with Iran. Christopher was our chief negotiator in the Iran Hostage Crisis, and here’s what he’s to say of today:
First, we must be sure we are talking with the right people. One of the most frustrating dead ends we encountered in the hostage negotiations was learning that despite prolonged efforts to forge a settlement with President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, he did not even have the power to move the hostages from one location to another, much less cause their release. If our 2006 negotiators study the vectors of power in Iran, they may be able to avoid such frustrations. At the moment, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is riding high. But he may not be as powerful as he seems and, in any event, power may shift over time. Ultimate authority remains with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and we have not heard from Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former two-term president and now chairman of the Expediency Council. In short, we should look for seams, even small ones, in the cloak of power.
Second, our negotiators should prepare themselves for what might be called “bazaar behavior.” For all my difficult dealings with interlocutors like China’s foreign minister, Qian Qichen, I always knew what he really wanted and that if an agreement was reached, its terms would be carried out. But with the Iranians, the negotiating style is likely to resemble that of a Middle Eastern marketplace, with outlandish demands, feints at abandoning the process and haggling over minor details up to the very last moment. Even after the agreement was signed on Jan. 19, 1981, the Iranians disavowed a vital technical annex. To bring them back in line, I directed the pilot of my plane, on a telephone line that I knew was tapped, to warm up the engines. The Iranians quickly dropped their claim, and a day later the hostages were released.
It’s fascinating, and, to tangent, I find all articles and books about political negotiations fascinating. The mannerisms of a foreign culture, their sense of shrewdness and bargaining — it’s all intriguing. If you ever get to read any of the books about the North Korean negotiations with Clinton, pick them up. They’re excellent. Who needs Harlan Coben for suspense when you’ve got reality, who needs a cleverly scripted movie for polished dialogue when you’ve got a domestic policy advisor named Zinsmeister?
Bill Clinton is a “virtuoso deceiver” and Hillary Rodham Clinton a “true chameleon” guilty of “self-serving behavior, comparative radicalism, and dubious personal morality.” Al Gore is a “mad dog” known to “foam at the mouth.” John McCain is given to “showboating.” And Jacques Chirac, Nelson Mandela, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan are all “feckless fools.”
And here I thought Dick Cheney would be the wittiest man in the White House!