Dubya Talks the Talk

Diplomacy is an art form, a subtle construct of gestures and words, body language and rhetoric carefully arranged for a single purpose: to persuade another country to behave the way you want. Tone is the hardest thing to get right. How do you convey your views so they’re firm and forceful without putting the other side’s back up?

George W. Bush is in the process of finding out. As a youthful candidate who wanted to be taken seriously despite his inexperience in foreign affairs, he struck a tough-guy pose, compensating for shallow knowledge by adopting the combative tone of a cold warrior. Guided by advisers steeped in anticommunism, Candidate Bush sought to contrast his hard-eyed “realism” with a Clinton-Gore idealism that he called bereft of core principles and dominated by a misguided desire to insert Washington into global peacemaking. The easiest way to mark the distinction was to talk up Russia and China as nations with nukes that threatened American interests; Bush would treat them not as the friends or strategic partners of Clinton’s dreams but as competitors and potential aggressors.

Last week President Bush found himself addressing both those countries for real, and the words and gestures he used seemed designed to show that the candidate hadn’t been kidding. In response to the February arrest of alleged spy Robert Hanssen, Bush ordered nearly 50 Russians out of the U.S., setting off a round of tit-for-tat expulsions not seen since the mid-’80s. In talks with China’s Vice Premier, Qian Qichen, he bluntly said Washington would sell whatever arms it chose to Taiwan, whether Beijing liked it or not. Bush and his advisers seemed downright eager to prove there’s a new sheriff in town, ready to take a more hawkish, assertive posture on foreign policy. What’s far less clear is whether the tough talk is simply a way to distance himself from Clinton, the posturing of an unsettled Administration that has yet to conform its rhetoric to its policiesor the harbinger of sharp confrontations to come.

It’s hard to tell. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer used “realism” a dozen times last week to explain, defend and justify the Administration’s rhetoric: “The message the President is sending is that his foreign policy is going to be based on reality.” Oh? That word is a handy portmanteau for just about any policy the Administration might adopt, but it doesn’t clarify a thing. So let’s take a little tour d’horizon, as the diplomats say, through the issues that are raising red flags.

Some hard-line turns are evident. National Missile Defense, the 21st century Star Wars, is coming, and Bush’s message to all critics is, Deal with it. Europe, Russia and China are starting to grasp that this will be a long diplomatic, political and military wrangle. North Korea, which Clinton drew into negotiations as a “state of concern,” has been downgraded again to “rogue state” by Bush. Three weeks ago, he embarrassed the President of South Korea, who has been trying to foster a warming trend, by saying the U.S. was in no rush to do more business with North Korea because he wasn’t sure Pyongyang could be trusted. The Administration has taken a decidedly hands-off stance toward peacemaking, including in the Middle East. And though right-wingers are howling that he is easing up on Iraq sanctions, Bush was quick to drop bombs near Baghdad.

RUSSIA. Last week the spy spat generated some real heat. When the Administration announced the mass expulsion and Moscow responded in kind, it recalled all the old Soviet-era standoffs. Moscow hyperventilated that the expulsions were a “throwback to the cold war” resulting from “cowboy-style” tactics. But the Bush team says the move showed their man’s quiet muscle. The message to Moscow: Dubya is going to tell it like it is, with no pussyfooting around when Russia misbehaves.

The Administration calls the Hanssen case a convenient excuse to clean out a growing nest of Russian spies in the U.S. As the number of agents crept back to cold war levelsup 40% since 1995, to 160the FBI complained of the burden on its counterintelligence teams and its budget. The CIA said tossing out Moscow’s agents would only mean the loss of U.S. assets in Russia. Clinton tried to soft-talk Moscow into cutting back but failed; the incoming Bush team was eager to act.

Most analysts don’t think the expulsions will cause long-term damage to U.S.-Russian relations. They’re a routine part of the spy game and quickly fade away. But it’s one more in a list of “unfriendly” disagreements between Washington and Moscow these days. There have been frequent rhetorical clashes over Moscow’s decision to renew arms sales to Tehran, Washington’s insistence it will go ahead with missile-defense systems, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to drum up global resistance to the shield. The Russians were incensed by an interview in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld branded them an “active proliferator.” Deputy Paul Wolfowitz chimed in, calling the Russian leaders “people willing to sell anything to anyone for money,” who get billions in U.S. aid, then “turn around and do smaller quantities of obnoxious stuff that threatens our people.”

The resulting bad air could choke the serious business between both sides. Washington says it still wants a cooperative, productive relationship, but Moscow bristles at the insults. The U.S. wants Russia to control its deteriorating nuclear arsenal and continue dismantling warheads, but Bush’s new budget cuts back 10% on the aid Washington gives Moscow to comply. The U.S. says Bush is merely demonstrating a “certain clarity and a certain decisiveness,” but the focus on differences may make it harder to bridge them. And Bush aides say that while he isn’t trying to trash the relationship, he does intend to strip Russia of the special status it enjoyed under Clinton, and treat it just like any other country.

CHINA. Beijing has been adopting soft-line tactics toward Washington and seems shocked to discover that this Bush is no comfy replica of the elder one. George W. has plenty of advisers who see China as the looming enemy, a military rival bent on asserting its dominance over the Pacific. Bush is sounding a hard note on human rights and has resolved to go ahead with a Pacific missile shield that Beijing opposes. But at the same time he is being tugged hard in the opposite direction by trade-minded business interests that want to preserve engagement and cooperation.

Which way will Bush lean? The test is fast approaching. In April he is scheduled to decide which new weapons to sell to Taiwan. The sales are ticklish every year, but never more so than now, when a new Administration wants to underscore its distance from China and an independence-minded Taiwan is bidding for the Navy’s most advanced antimissile radar system.

China adamantly opposes letting Taiwan buy four guided-missile destroyers equipped with Aegis radar that can sound an alarm the millisecond a Chinese M-9 missile is fired from the mainland, 160 km away. Beijing fears the new systems would give the island a military edge, whereas Taiwan says the Aegis would merely even the score against the 300 mainland missiles aimed at it. Beijing is also worried that the radar could eventually allow Taiwan to link up with Washington’s regional defense shield. “Of all the arms the U.S. could sell, Aegis is the worst,” says China’s chief arms negotiator, Sha Zukang. “We hate this idea.”

Last week Bush said no decision has been made on the Aegis. The rumor mongers have him leaning in favor of the deal, and he essentially told Qian the U.S. has the right to sell Taiwan any arms it likes. At the same time, he sought to reassure Qian: “I am going to look you in the eye and tell you that we can have good relations with China. Nothing we do is a threat to you, and I want you to tell that to your leadership.” Bush said he was conveying an approach that would be “firm” but “respectful.”

If Bush approves the sale, Beijing’s anger could undermine human rights and nonproliferation efforts. But some say the tough talk could be necessary for a compromise. Bush could say yes but put off the actual sale for a year while China would be asked to cut back its military spending and reduce the missiles aimed at Taiwan.

There’s certainly room for straight talk and firmness in U.S. diplomacy. Bush’s clarity could inspire sounder policy. To keep the tough talk constructive, though, Bush will need perfect pitch. Some may dismiss his verbal “realism” as the bluster of a green President who wants to puff up his toughness and resolve. Others may see the candor as a sign of overt hostilityand simply stop listening. Bashing Russia fuels anti-American forces in Russian society. Isolating North Korea doesn’t reduce its threatening missiles. The Aegis could hurt rather than help Taiwan’s security. How, asks Brookings Institution senior fellow Ivo Daalder, will Washington get competitors to “work with us when we’re poking them in the eye”? Bush may find that tough talk is not all there is to smart diplomacy.