|
|
 New York Times, June 28, 2003 - WASHINGTON, June 27 — President Bush's trip to the NATO summit meeting in Turkey comes at a time of diminished diplomatic strength, in which international organizations and individual countries have forced his administration into some strategic compromises, foreign policy specialists and diplomats say. As Mr. Bush tries to press NATO allies to play a greater role in Iraq, he faces resistance from critics of the administration's previously unilateral stances who worry that the Iraq mission may be on the brink of failure, those analysts said. The resistance from normally friendly countries like Germany, France and Japan, and from international organizations long dominated by the United States, has forced the administration to rethink its plans for security in Iraq and for persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. "What we are seeing is other nations joining to resist U.S. unilateralism and exacting a higher price," said Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center, an institute in Washington created by former President Richard M. Nixon that specializes in foreign policy. "We've seen pounds of flesh being exacted before. Now it's an aggregate pound of flesh." Mr. Kupchan said international skepticism and domestic pressure from Americans seeking a more collaborative role with the world had prompted the administration to adjust its tone. But it may be too late, he said. "I don't think you can turn around three years of U.S. foreign policy with some midnight initiatives," he said. "The image of this president in the public's and the world's eyes is pretty much established." Bush administration officials deny that their diplomatic strength has been undercut. "Throughout, there has been extended outreach to the international community on a myriad of issues," one foreign policy official said, "and the international community has responded. One has merely to note the number of countries active in the coalition in Iraq." But this official acknowledged a new pragmatism in the administration. Certainly, allies remain reluctant to engage more with Iraq. But administration officials point out that they achieved United Nations authorization for staying in the country, and that more than half the NATO members are active on the ground there. But with the transfer of some authority to Iraq days away, American officials have had to accept limits on their continued presence, agreeing to leave the country if asked to by the Iraqi authorities, however unlikely that may be. Last week, the United Nations moved to clip American wings by refusing to extend to United States troops immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Despite a heavy lobbying campaign within NATO, administration officials concede that the president is likely to win only token help in the form of military trainers. And on North Korea, American negotiators have been compelled by Asian allies to forsake a hard-line stance forbidding incentives to North Korea so that it will abandon its nuclear program. China, the host of the six-nation negotiations, urged the change; when South Korea and Japan signed on, the administration had to act to keep its partners from going their own way. Polls show the president is losing ground among Americans on his signature issue of international security. Noting a more agreeable tone in foreign policy in recent weeks, some analysts see the growing influence of the president's political team over his more ideological advisers. Still, foreign officials and international diplomats appear increasingly willing to tell the United States no, and that is getting the attention of American politicians. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, expressed frustration with NATO, questioning whether it could be expected to contribute troops in Iraq when it has been slow to meet its commitments for personnel and resources in Afghanistan. "It tends to be words, words, words," he said Friday. |