Condoleezza Rice will certainly become the next secretary of state for the Bush Administration, having had her nomination confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday with only two members voting against her nomination, including one who characterized Dr. Rice as “one of the principal architects, implementers and defenders” of a failed foreign and Iraq-war policy that is “alienating” even U.S. allies: John Kerry.
It may come as a surprise to many readers that the defeated Democratic challenger is still in Washington, D.C. In fact, he’ll be around for a while; his current Senate term doesn’t end officially until January 3rd, 2009. And while one may well doubt whether Senator Kerry enjoyed returning to normal duties, which include being the fourth-highest ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, there was probably at least one person present at the confirmation hearings who was happy to see him there: Dr. Rice herself. After all, if only a few thousand voters had grown impatient with lines at the polls or a couple of Diebold machines had flaked out, she may never have found herself before the Committee yesterday and today.
In the wake of Colin Powell’s resignation as secretary of state, it has been an all but foregone conclusion that Rice will replace him. Republicans control both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate itself, Rice has received full backing from Bush, and, as even Kerry admitted, her background and experience “absolutely” qualified her for the post. Why, then, did Kerry overlook these qualifications (and buck Senate traditions) by failing to approve the nominee?
The answer can be found in Rice’s testimony during the hearing, which was at turns evasive, obfuscatory or downright combative. What emerged from her interactions with the committee members was that under Rice’s stewardship, far from changing in any significant way, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy will remain exactly as it was during Bush’s first term. And given the estrangement of allies, the dubious claims made to the American public and the international community, and the “catastrophic success” (as Donald Rumsfeld himself put it) of the centerpiece of the administration’s foreign policy, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that is hardly an encouraging sign.
Rice opened with remarks about how “the time for diplomacy” is now, and that she would reach out to the international community. But, given as — by her own admission — the United States has been engaged in international diplomacy on behalf of its operations in Iraq, exactly what she would do remains unclear, and Rice had nothing more to say on the matter throughout the hearings.
When pressed by Kerry and fellow committee members Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer to explain the occupying forces’ unpreparedness to deal with the Iraqi insurgency and resisters, Rice characterized this as an “unforeseen” development. Kerry countered that he was “disturbed” by Rice’s seeming refusal to admit that the potential for ethnic and sectarian violence would be high in the power vacuum created by U.S. invasion. Rice was also not forthcoming about how the coalition forces would maintain order and security during the upcoming election, or how the Sunni minority would be protected from reprisals if they came to the polls in large numbers. In fact, when Biden later asked Rice what the U.S.’s plans were with regard to staying in Iraq post-election, Rice would offer no guarantees whatsoever. She was not prepared to offer any indication of American commitment — U.S. troops might leave on January 31 to leave the newly elected government without any semblance of security, or conversely, they might never leave.
Given the opportunity by Biden, Rice also chose not to clear up mounting rumors that Pentagon officials are calling for a strike against Iran, which may lead to more disastrous results than the invasion of Iraq.
Throughout the hearings, Rice let very little slip out in terms of a substantive response, except when challenged by Boxer over her participation in the administration’s campaign to convince Americans and the U.N. that Iraq had WMDs when in fact it did not. Boxer hinted darkly that Rice’s close relationship with the president may have “overwhelmed your respect for the truth,” prompting Rice to respond, voice trembling, that “I hope that you would not impugn my integrity.”
Rice’s recalcitrance and unwillingness to admit to any errors in the execution of the first term’s foreign policy do not bode well for future success in Iraq or improving America’s world standing. She may have the credentials, but she is unfit to take Colin Powell’s job as secretary of state. Whereas Powell was a largely well-respected (if not always agreed-with) voice in the international forum, Rice is now poised to do even further harm to American diplomatic relations by refusing to reconsider a foreign policy agenda that makes no allowance for even apologizing for its own mistakes.
Rob Hunter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.
