|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| BUILDING A TEAM | |
 December 18, 2000  |
|
|
Two former diplomats and two journalists react to President-elect George W. Bush's latest nominees for office.
|
|
|
RAY SUAREZ: Now, four perspectives on the Bush national security team and his appointments to date. We hear from two former diplomats: Lawrence Eagleburger served as Secretary of State in the Bush administration. Donald McHenry served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in the Carter administration; and two journalists, David Brooks of The Weekly Standard, and Ruben Navarrette of The Dallas Morning News. Lawrence Eagleburger, I'm sure these appointments were watched in world capitals. What should people who will be in contact with the American government in the coming years make of these appointments and what should they be expecting from this Bush foreign affairs team?
RAY SUAREZ: Donald McHenry, same question. DONALD McHENRY: I would agree with that. They are experienced; they are very articulate. They are a quick study. I would add, however, that there’s another side to it, and that is their experience is with the world which we hope has either passed or is passing, and that the world with which they will have to deal is very different from the world where they have their experience and their expertise. RAY SUAREZ: Lawrence Eagleburger, how do you respond? These are credentials that were largely forged in the Cold War. Condoleezza Rice is a Soviet expert. There isn't even a Soviet Union anymore. LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: But let’s remember something: It is Colin Powell and it is Condoleezza Rice that presided with President Bush, George Bush, over that change. They fully understand what the changes meant. They were involved in putting together the pieces after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They know what they're dealing with and they know what the future holds. I think it's nonsense to argue that their experiences of the old worlds -- it’s certainly -- they were in the process of helping make the new world. RAY SUAREZ: Donald McHenry?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Where will the emphasis be? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Donald McHenry, today on the wires there was a survey of African heads of state -- and while they were gratified in some cases, took note of the fact that Dr. Rice and General Powell were the first African-Americans to reach these heights inside a new administration, they wondered whether Africa wouldn't simply disappear from the main radar screen. What evidence would you have of what part Latin America, Asia, South Asia, might play in a new administration? DONALD McHENRY: Well, I think these areas will demand attention simply because they won't go away. On the other hand, what we've seen in the campaign is not very encouraging. But then campaigns are not very encouraging either. President-elect Bush tended to describe our participation in the world as where there was a strategic interest of the United States. That covers a lot of sends. It's both a valid and a phrase which ones questions. It's interesting that when he outlined the areas where he thought that there was this strategic interest, he left out significant portions of the world, and there is concern among those that they were left out. RAY SUAREZ: Lawrence Eagleburger?
DONALD McHENRY: No one is predicting they're going to be difficult. We are simply talking about what they bring to the table. And they don't bring to the table that kind of experience. RAY SUAREZ: How do you respond to that, Mr. Secretary? LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Well, you know, we're going back and forth like a ping-pong table here. But the fact of the matter is maybe they don't bring those specific experiences to the table. The fact of the matter also is they bring more experience to the table than most of what we've seen in the last eight years. And I can predict to you now that there will be a far more effective foreign policy than we've seen in the last eight years. Beyond that, I can’t go at this stage until we see what happens. RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's talk a little bit about what’s called the Powell Doctrine, setting the bar a little higher for American involvement overseas, wanting certain conditions -- political and military -- to exist before troops are committed in the world. This week, one European columnist wrote that if we follow the Powell Doctrine of getting only into clearly winnable situations where the U.S. has a tremendous advantage, we will only get involved in wars that are already won. In -- when we’ve seen in the world incidents like Rwanda, operations like the Kosovo bombing, how does the Powell Doctrine -- as it's been talked about -- mesh with this world where it's not always clear what the best way forward is? LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Well, the answer to that is until we see the Powell Doctrine in action, I can only tell you thank God for the fact that it’s there. We have spent the last eight years bouncing around, putting troops where they didn't belong, and I think it is perfectly appropriate -- and I think one of the good things about this team that we see is they are going to be far more careful before we commit American troops into situations where we are not clear about the objective and we are not clear about how long we ought to be involved. So as far as I'm concerned, anybody that comes at this issue from the perspective of the Powell Doctrine has my blessings because I think we have done it all wrong for eight years. RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador McHenry. DONALD McHENRY: Well, I wouldn't agree that it's all been wrong for eight years. I think there have been serious shortcomings in the world. Let me give you an example. In the campaign, there was a statement that the United States should not play the world's policeman or be the only... or be the 9-1-1. And that's true. And it's very easy to say. The question is, do we, (a), either ignore the calls which come in to the United States and the rest of the international community, or do we try and build some kind of acceptable structure which is capable of responding? Now, I would say the last administration did not live up to the challenge which was there, particularly in trying to build a structure. But it remains to be seen whether this new administration is going to be any better at building those structures or simply outlining what we cannot and should not do. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Politically revealing appointments? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Let me widen the conversation now to include my journalists.
RAY SUAREZ: Ruben Navarrette, is it not just the faces and the colors on the faces but the jobs that we should be looking at? RUBEN NAVARRETTE: I think we should be looking at both. I think this is a great day for Texas and for Governor Bush and now President-elect Bush. Just to echo some of the sentiments that have already been said, I think that this is a wonderful country and I think these appointments prove it, and this is an individual in President-elect Bush who does feel comfortable tapping folks from around the spectrum, taking opportunity wherever he finds it and, as he said and as was echoed by General Powell and others, this is really, this notion that this is what America is all about. If you work hard, play by the rules, sacrifice, you can accomplish anything you want, and I think he did more in a couple of days than frankly some liberal policies have done over decades toward advancing that notion. RAY SUAREZ: Well, eight years ago, then President-elect Clinton promised a cabinet that looked like America, and he was often criticized; he was given kind of a rough ride for using that phrase. In the year 2000, these two administrations later, can you have a cabinet anymore that doesn't look like America? Is it too late for that?
RAY SUAREZ: But, David Brooks, did we used to have news conferences around the appointment of a White House counsel? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah. Well it's an important job because it's who you spend the time with. You know, the people he appointed didn't protest their way into office. They were raised to say you're going to work hard, you're going to achieve your way to the top. So it's not the Jesse Jackson model -- it’s more the DuBois model that you have got to work twice as hard maybe to get as far as a white male but you're going to do it. And these people, you know, are Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are known for their tremendous work ethic. There's one other thing which I think Larry Eagleburger didn't quite describe. And that is the extreme caution of the foreign policy views of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The reporting and the books out of the Gulf War described Colin Powell as very hesitant to want to roll back the invasion of Kuwait. They describe Secretary Eagleburger as someone who is much more aggressive in wanting to do that. And I think aside from the wonderful statements about -- you know -- where we are and where we are as a multi-cultural nation, the extreme caution to use force is something that has to be worrying Americans and our allies. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Multicultural comfort | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Lawrence Eagleburger, let me bring you back in. How do you respond to David Brooks' point? LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: I think he's got a point, but I think when we look at the future now, I think we need to understand that at least from my perspective, we have spent eight years bouncing troops around where they shouldn't be going. I think that we will find in the Powell approach to this sort of thing -- not that he is opposed to the use of force when it's necessary but that he'll want to identify the objective, how many forces are necessary, and how long we will be there, so I think that while it is probably clear that he will... not probably clear, but it is to me perfectly clear that we will be far more reluctant in this administration to use forces the way they have been used in the last eight years, I think it would be wrong to say that we will never use them. I think what you can count on is a far more intellectual, far more intelligent and far more strategic approach to that question. RAY SUAREZ: Donald McHenry, it was more of a big to do when you were appointed U.N. ambassador than I think arguably it would be today. What does that tell you about how far we’ve come in the last quarter century? DONALD McHENRY: Oh, I think there’s no question that there is progress along these lines. I wouldn’t want to -- I wouldn’t want to overdo it. If you take Condy Rice and Colin Powell, these are, as I started off to say, these are experienced, very sharp people who can hold their own. I would simply note that it’s no accident that General Powell was appointed. The president was very dependent upon him, leaned on him, in fact, in the campaign and used his association with Powell as a part of getting elected. RAY SUAREZ: Final thoughts Ruben Navarrette? What should we know about Al Gonzalez? RUBEN NAVARRETTE: Well, I think just a broader sense the only thing that would have been more significant than say this nomination to White House counsel is, should there come a time when you have an opening on the Supreme Court and President Bush has a chance to make a nomination, the smart money says that he'll choose an Hispanic. He'll make history by putting an Hispanic on the Supreme Court. That’ll be a big deal. That's a huge deal. And, you know, I take issue with the idea that these things might not matter or we never held press conferences with White House counsels before. There are folks all over America who are looking at Al Gonzalez and looking at Colin Powell and seeing a face for their children, seeing a future for their children. I think it’s a wonderful thing, and to top it off, you have these very qualified people. We’ve ended up in this discussion about what qualified means now, and I think Governor Bush has scored a hole in one by putting forward people who both diversify his cabinet and bring forward a certain level of quality. RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you all very much. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
LAWRENCE
EAGLEBURGER: Well, I think you start with professionalism. They are
both first-class professionals, both the new secretary and the new national
security advisor. I think that's where the foreign capitals will start.
I think we will see very soon that it's the best team in foreign affairs
that we've seen for a very long time. 
DONALD
McHENRY: I don't disagree with that. They certainly were involved in
that process, but the 
LAWRENCE
EAGLEBURGER: Well, here again, we're jumping to conclusions without
any reason to jump to them at this stage. These are two very intelligent
people. The president is intelligent. He recognizes this is a new world;
they all do. They all recognize that the challenges are different, including
the third world challenges, the developing world challenges. I have
no reason to believe that they will do anything that will be displeasing
to any of these people. I think they understand the new world, and they
will deal with it in its broadest consequences. But until we see them
in action, I think it's nonsense to try to predict things are going
to be difficult. Of course they're going to be difficult. 
DAVID
BROOKS: Well it reveals what sort of people George W. Bush is comfortable
with. You look at the guy's life story he could be the ultimate white
man -- Harvard, Yale, old line family. He was in the bombastic Bush
kid at the Midland, Texas Country Club. And yet, look who he's going
to be spending time with -- a very strong woman in Karen Hughes, a very
strong black woman in Condoleezza Rice, a Hispanic guy from Houston,
a black guy from the South Bronx. I think this is symptomatic of who
George Bush is and maybe where his generation is -- somebody who is
just comfortable with people of different backgrounds, and for those
who say this is a racist country or a patriarchal country, it’s
very difficult to explain how this Republican conservative is so personally
comfortable with these sorts of people. 
RUBEN
NAVARRETTE: I don't think you can. I think it's turned over now. I mean
I was talking earlier to somebody saying you'd have to go back pretty
far to find somebody who made their first four appointments and right
off the bat in their first four appointments of a new administration
not a single white male -- think about that for a second -- Republican,
Democrat, Independent, whatever -- Bill Clinton didn't accomplish it.
No other President in recent memory to my recollection accomplished
it. It is a new world out there. And I think it would be very difficult
to come forward now and diversify your staff by bringing in one white
male from Harvard, one white male from Yale and saying, well, here you
have diversity. But those days are gone. 
