Muscular Diplomacy

TWO OUT OF THREE AIN’T BAD,” sang Meat Loaf some years ago–a song of which my good wife reminded me (well, to be exact, told me about) when I worried that I had not been entirely accurate when I named three countries in which I thought our ambassadors are not doing as much as they might to uphold and defend America’s foreign policy positions.

Some readers may recall that in the January 14, 2004 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD I complained that our policies were being undermined because our ambassadors are missing in action in the war of ideas. I have no regrets about having mentioned Britain, where our ambassador remains invisible although our president and Britain’s gutsy prime minister need as much public support as can be deployed to combat the antiwar factions that are accusing George W. Bush of having fabricated intelligence reports on weapons-of-mass-destruction and Tony Blair of playing his poodle by going along with the lie. What I said then is as true now as when I wrote it, so true that several private groups are meeting to come up with a plan to fill the gap created by the embassy’s absence from the battlefield of ideas.

So, too, in the case of Germany. Just last week a leading German newspaper reported that if it were not for Jeff Gedmin and his Aspen Institute Berlin, which I cited favorably in my article, the U.S. position would be completely without advocates in the public debates that are roiling that country. An embassy that often fails to return the telephone calls of important German politicians can hardly count itself among the front-line warriors defending its government’s policies.

That’s two. But I seem to have had it wrong in the case of Italy, which is why I find Meat Loaf’s song so comforting. Upon reading my original article, our ambassador in Rome, Mel Sembler, called me and suggested in his robust and direct style that I didn’t know what I was talking about. He invited me to Rome to find out the facts. Seemed like a good chance to win an argument over a bowl or two of pasta, so I accepted his invitation to dine at the Villa Taverna, our embassy in Italy.

VENI, VIDI, VICIT, or I came, I saw, he conquered. Sembler, who acquired a formidable reputation as a vigorous defender of American interests during his stint as our ambassador to Australia, arranged for key members of his staff, and his most formidable wife, Betty, to join us at dinner–which proved to be a bit more elaborate than a bowl of pasta (osso buco, if you must know). More important, when I began the discussion with my usual confrontational, “So what do you guys do here?” I got some interesting and, to me, surprising answers. Candor compels that I share them with the readers who were treated to my earlier complaints about ambassadorial inactivity.

Start with the fact that Sembler and his staff regularly bombard the mostly left-wing press with letters and op-ed pieces defending American policy. Do these articles persuade Italy’s anti-American hard-liners? Probably not. But they show Italy’s politicians, most notably Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, that we will do what we can to back them when they make unpopular decisions, such as supporting us in Iraq. It will also show those who reject Franco-German leadership in favor of America’s that we will do what we can to support them. If the Franco-German grip on European Union policy is to be loosened, it will take a coalition of Britain, Italy, Spain (the new government is likely to continue resisting the E.U. voting formula being pushed by France and Germany), and Poland and the other countries that will join the European Union on May 1. And they won’t take the risk of antagonizing Europe’s two largest countries unless they have visible evidence that America will be in their corner. Which is the signal Sembler tries to send by publicly engaging America’s critics.

Then there is the all-out effort needed to get America’s business in Italy done. Hundreds of staff must be moved from a vulnerable roadside office to secure facilities in the American compound, which happens to be in downtown Rome. Sembler felt it important not to have the embassy and the American staffers from our military, Homeland Security, and other agencies scurry to some remote location in order to be less accessible to terrorist attacks. Blessed with the space to accommodate additional buildings on embassy grounds, the ambassador and his staff arranged the necessary construction and relocations–not easy to do in Italy–so as to maintain a very visible presence from which to fly the American flag.

Trickier still was what had to be done to make possible the deployment of our troops from Italy to Iraq. It seems that there is an Italian law prohibiting moving such troops into combat without U.N. sanction. The solution, crafted by Sembler, was to have the law declared inapplicable on the ground that the troops were being sent to secure an airfield, rather than to engage in combat. It doesn’t take a foreign-policy expert to guess that the deployment of our forces could not have been accomplished had the embassy failed to establish solid, ongoing working relations with Italian politicians and bureaucrats–chits which were ready to be called in when needed.

Which brings us to the question of inviting American experts to various seminars and public events. Such happenings do occur: Last October the embassy organized a session to explain and defend the Middle East roadmap (no easy chore, in my view). But meetings such as those sponsored by the Ambrosetti Group, a leading think tank, suffer for lack of American participation, a problem created more by the unwillingness of administration gurus to forsake the campaign for domestic votes in order to hunt for foreign support, than by any failure of the embassy to issue invitations.

MIGHT THE EMBASSY DO MORE? Perhaps. But my worry that the allocation of limited embassy resources is dictated by a covert disagreement with the president’s policies seems unfounded. Not a word was said that even remotely suggested hostility to the nation’s policy as laid down by the president. Quite the opposite: The ambassador and his staff are Fox News listeners, WEEKLY STANDARD readers, fans of the same intellectual neocons who have been accused by the administration’s opponents of adding too much muscularity to American foreign policy. If there are any Bush-haters in the Villa Taverna, they were safely hidden from sight. After talking to Sembler, and especially after talking to his wife, who has taken on the role of responding to anti-American talk at the innumerable ladies’ lunches she bravely attends, my guess is that any such dissenters who would undermine the president had better stay out of sight if they don’t want their Italian jobs to come to an abrupt end.

Irwin M. Stelzer is director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, a columnist for the Sunday Times (London), a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

Related Content