Former Senator John Kerry has a long-standing reputation as
someone lacking an ear for the minor key. He seems to be tone-deaf,
not a good thing in the vicar of American foreign policy. In his
abortive run for president in 2004, it was the little things: wife
Teresa, the wealthy widow of Heinz ketchup heir John Heinz made it
clear she wasn’t going to adjust her extravagant lifestyle whether
her new husband got elected or not. The photo of candidate Kerry
taking a break from his campaign to go windsurfing off the
Massachusetts coast left Joe Sixpack perplexed. And asking for
Swiss cheese on his Philly cheesesteak probably lost him at least
the eastern half of Pennsylvania.
Kerry has long coveted the job of Secretary of State, and now he
has it. Unfortunately, he got it on the heels of Hillary Clinton,
who had already set a clear course for the nation’s foreign policy,
a course designed in concert with the Obama White House. That
course was signaled by her inaugural visits to the Pacific Rim
nations of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and China itself. Now
Secretary Kerry, on his inaugural foreign junket, has not
only turned his back on the Pacific Rim in favor of hugging
fractious Europe and jumping back into the Middle East quagmire,
but counseled his European audiences not to put too much stock in
the Pacific focus, cf. “you know — people called it the
pivot, right?”
Policy analysts in other nations spend their lives poring over
every statement, every bit of minutiae that may signal the
intentions of the United States. Policy analysts in the United
States do the same with other great powers: during the Cold War,
the term “Kremlinologist” came into vogue as a short-hand
description of those who tried to read the intentions of the Soviet
leadership. Today, Kremlinology has been replaced by Sinology, as
our analysts assess every phrase of every statement uttered by
every Chinese official of any stature whatsoever.
Consistency in foreign policy is not simply a virtue; it is a
vital component of the national security. Inconsistency in this
realm is jarring to others; it troubles the defense establishments
of those nations that see the United States as a real or potential
adversary. It raises the risk of miscalculation in foreign
capitals.[1]
It offers the prospect of confrontation.
So, it is a real question why Secretary Kerry is pirouetting
around Europe, speaking derisively of the policy of paying greater
attention to our interests in the Pacific, and dropping in first on
the British Prime Minister at Number 10 Downing Street. Is our
relationship with England that shaky? Are there matters engaging
France or Germany that can’t be managed by our ambassadors in those
capitals? Kerry was raised in Europe, the son of a diplomat,
schooled in Switzerland, speaks French and German, and apparently
some Italian — which may go far toward explaining those stops on
his itinerary.
But they don’t go far toward explaining the downgrading of the
Pacific Rim. Here, U.S. allies are saber-rattling over claims to
islands and their resources in claimed territorial waters. China is
in a parlous state as it changes heads of government, and seeks to
bring its military power in line with its economic power. North
Korea is pressing on with refining its nuclear capability while
developing the means to deliver it not merely regionally but
globally. And our Eurocentric Secretary of State is taking tea with
David Cameron. What is China’s Xi Jinping to make of it? What is
Vladimir Putin to think?
But the Secretary’s journey is not restricted to Europe. Turkey,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar are also on his
itinerary. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Turkey to
the NATO Alliance, although Washington, D.C. seems sometimes to
forget the fact that Turkey is a NATO ally. Kerry took the
opportunity of his stop in Ankara to lecture Prime Minister Erdogan
on the latter’s equation of anti-Muslim bias with Zionism and
anti-Semitism. It was the reference to Zionism that raised hackles
in Israel, which responded accordingly. Kerry’s rebuke contributed
nothing constructive to his talks in Ankara, nor to relations
between the U.S. and Turkey nor, for that matter, to relations
between Turkey and Israel. So, what was the point?
Finally, Kerry seems bent on intervening in Syria, a position he
does share with his predecessor, Mrs. Clinton, who also
felt the need to leap into the mess in Syria. The White House did
not support her on this. It remains to be seen whether it will
support Secretary Kerry. Some non-lethal aid has already been
provided. We shall soon discover whether that constitutes a foot on
the slippery slope leading to full-scale U.S. involvement in that
conflict, with all the dangers that will involve.
It is no secret that John Kerry was not President Obama’s first
choice for Secretary of State. His preference was for U.N.
Ambassador Susan Rice. Events have prevented anyone from learning
whether Rice was qualified for the job; the consensus everywhere
except in the Oval Office was that she was not. But that is a moot
point now. The issue now is whether John Kerry is qualified for the
job. In a time when the United States is trying to extract its
battered forces from two war zones and to reset its defense
capabilities, Secretary Kerry’s self-indulgent first steps are not
reassuring.
_____________
[1]
In a speech before the National Press Club in January 1950,
Secretary of State Dean Acheson appeared to suggest that South
Korea lay outside the United States’ sphere of interest. There is a
substantial body of thought holding that Russia’s misapprehension
of Acheson’s remarks led directly to the Korean War.
Photo: UPI
