« So, about those first 100 hours... | Michael Roston's Blog | McCain: "I was for the troop surge before I was against it" »

America's next UN Ambassador: Zalmay Khalilzad


I'm cross-posting this over from Bolton Watch, where I wrote it last month.

*** 

I know everyone in the world already knows this, but as we, and (undoubtedly TPMCafe) prepare to decommission Bolton Watch (although, one should never stop watching John Bolton), let's report for a moment on Bolton's successor.

Bob Novak says it will be Zalmay Khalilzad, soon to be ex-Ambassador to Iraq.  Although what no one else is relaying is Novak's "footnote" that says that Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, expressed interest in the job.

What would a Khalilzad ambassadorship mean for America, and the UN?

I doubt we'll see any bruising confirmation hearings over Ambassador Khalilzad - he's been confirmed to multiple embassies by the Senate, and with little dissension.  It would take something pretty shocking to make the US Senate, even under Joe Biden's chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, change their tone, and that ammunition would have been loaded before he was shipped off to Iraq.

Much will be made about how Khalilzad, as a Muslim, will be a good emissary to the Muslim world.  But if this was true, we would keep him in Afghanistan, or Iraq, where his presence would soothe the Muslims of the world we need to be most concerned with, rather than the ambassadors of Qatar and Indonesia.  With a PhD from the U. of Chicago and a membership in the Project for a New American Century, Khalilzad will be rapidly fingered as a primary neocon player, and that's quite enough to make the Group of 77 and China think you are a loyal Bush/Cheney man.  

Still, Khalilzad will be more likely to play by the UN's rule of diplomatic etiquette, and in this way, it will be a smoother time for the United States at the UN.  The G-77 and China won't just dig in their heels on issues because Khalilzad is Khalilzad - they'll dig in their heels because he represents America.  That's a better situation than where we've been, especially on the critical but underreported UN reform issues that need to be bigger American priorities.

I don't think I'm simply going out on a limb here - check out this report that Dr. Khalilzad signed off to in 2000 when he was still at the RAND Corporation.  The report was supposed to be a bipartisan blueprint to manage national security for the winner of 2000's presidential contest:

In our view, sustaining support for this approach will require rebuilding the effectiveness of the UN as an institution and reestablishing US domestic support for the UN.  This will require paying the dues that the US owes to the UN, while pressing for needed institutional reforms.

That's a heck of a lot better than "losing ten floors."


3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If he is so important at the UN who is so important to be in Baghdad? For a President whose legacy is Iraq he ought to be putting his best (as he sees them) people in the most critical places. Iraq seems like one of them.

Reference - for anyone of us who was not paying attention back when. Those who signed PNAC principles:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett,  Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney,  Eliot A. Cohen,  Midge Decter,  Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg,  Francis Fukuyama,   Frank Gaffney,  Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan,    Zalmay Khalilzad,    I. Lewis Libby,    Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle,    Peter W. Rodman,    Stephen P. Rosen,    Henry S. Rowen,   Donald Rumsfeld,    Vin Weber,    George Weigel,    Paul Wolfowitz

user-pic

You're serious, aren't you, michaelroston ? Your blog entry reads like it was written by Rendon or the Lincoln Group, and I doubt that is the impression that you are trying to make here.

I've outlined enough citations in my TPM blog entry earlier this AM to convince most readers that Khalilzad is just another trusted Neocon thug of the Bush admin., a repackaged Bolton.

He's married to Cheryl Bernard of the Rand Corp, he is reported to have muscled aside Karzai's political competitors at least twice, at the most critical times in the early installation of the mayor of Kabul.

Khalilzad was born in 1951 in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. His father worked in the local office of the ministry of finance. His mother, though illiterate, kept informed by having her children read the newspapers out loud to her.

His family moved to Kabul when he was in eighth grade. In high school he spent a year as an exchange student in California that he credits with giving him a different approach to his home country.

Khalilzad went on to attend Kabul University but transferred to the American University of Beirut after winning a scholarship. He studied political science and history of the Middle East in Beirut from 1970 to 1974. During this time, he met his wife Cheryl Bernard who was researching a dissertation on Arab nationalism. The couple has two sons.

In 1975, Khalilzad came to American to pursue his doctorate at the University of Chicago under the guidance of Albert Wohlstetter, an expert in military strategy who helped him make contacts in Washington. Wohlstetter exposed Khalilzad to the so-called neoconservative approach to foreign policy that places an emphasis on using America's military power.

Khalilzad accepted a teaching position in the political science department at Columbia in 1979 and wrote articles about the Soviet Union's invasion into Afghanistan that received considerable attention from experts. In 1984 he became an American citizen and accepted a fellowship with the Council on Foreign Relations.

From 1985-89, Khalilzad served as an adviser on Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war at the State Department where he wrote a policy paper that called for the U.S. to shift its focus from Iraq to Iran. He left the government for the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization where he founded the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

During the first Persian Gulf war, Khalilzad worked for the Defense Department as the assistant deputy undersecretary for policy where he received the Department of Defense medal for outstanding public service.

Convinced that the United States had left unfinished business after driving Iraq from Kuwait, Khalilzad encouraged then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to remove Saddam Hussein from power and continued to push for regime change in Iraq.

After the war, he was assigned to analyze America's strategic position in the post-Cold War world and helped draft the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992 that outlined a strategy for maintaining America's global hegemony using the threat of military force.

When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team at the Pentagon and was a counselor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In 2001, he moved to the National Security Council to become the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs.

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2589341.stm[/url]

Thursday, 19 December, 2002, 11:18 GMT

Afghan legal system under spotlight

...Mr Karzai has made it clear that Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim society, intends to maintain sharia law, while at the same time establishing pluralistic democracy and an independent judiciary....

and, he's a protege of the esteemed, and sole Bush admin. advisor, as with other republican presidents before him, on Afghanistan, Thomas E. Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, the professor with no PhD who was paid millions....twice...first by Reagan's admin. to compile and print up the "Jihad" school textbooks for Afghanistan schoolchildren in the 80's, books that the Taliban deemed appropriate to be left in continued use after their ascendancy, and paid again, to revise and re-print the texts for use in schoolrooms in the post US invasion era:

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

"The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits.

AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.....

.... Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books.

"Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. .....

.... AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.

Officials said private humanitarian groups paid for continued reprintings during the Taliban years. Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers. ....

..... Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.

"We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."

....In early January, UNICEF began printing new texts for many subjects but arranged to supply copies of the old, unrevised U.S. books for other subjects, including Islamic instruction.

Within days, the Afghan interim government announced that it would use the old AID-produced texts for its core school curriculum. UNICEF's new texts could be used only as supplements.

Earlier this year, the United States tapped into its $296 million aid package for rebuilding Afghanistan to reprint the old books, but decided to purge the violent references.

About 18 of the 200 titles the United States is republishing are primarily Islamic instructional books, which agency officials refer to as "civics" courses. Some books teach how to live according to the Koran, Brown said, and "how to be a good Muslim."

UNICEF is left with 500,000 copies of the old "militarized" books, a $200,000 investment that it has decided to destroy, according to U.N. officials.

On Feb. 4, Brown arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said.

"We turned it from a wartime curriculum to a peacetime curriculum," he said.

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/ schools.html[/url]

Getting children back to school is a number one priority in Afghanistan's post war government. But the big question is: what will they learn?

Back to school in Afghanistan

CBC News Online | January 27, 2004

The National | Airdate: May 6, 2002

Reporter: Carol Off | Producer: Heather Abbott | Editor: Catherine McIsaac

....A student learns to add and subtract bullets

Math teachers use bullets as props to teach lessons in subtraction. This isn't their idea. During decades of war, the classroom has been the best place to indoctrinate young people with their duty to fight. Government-sponsored textbooks in Afghanistan are filled with violence. For years, war was the only lesson that counted.

The Mujahideen, Afghanistan's freedom fighters, used the classroom to prepare children to fight the Soviet empire. The Russians are long gone but the textbooks are not. The Mujahideen had wanted to prepare the next generation of Afghans to fight the enemy, so pupils learned the proper clips for a Kalashnikov rifle, the weight of bombs needed to flatten a house, and how to calculate the speed of bullets. Even the girls learn it.

"We were providing education behind the enemy lines."

But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. It was all part of American Cold War policy in the 1980s, helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet army on Afghan soil.

University of Nebraska

The University of Nebraska was front and center in that effort. The university did the publishing and had an Afghan study center and a director who was ready to help defeat the "Red Menace."

"I think Ronald Reagan himself felt that this was a violation of the rights of the Afghans," says Tom Goutier, who was behind the Mujahideen textbook project. "I think a lot of those working for him thought this was an opportunity for us to do the Soviet Union some damage."

Goutier's personal involvement in Afghanistan began in 1964 as a young U.S. peace corps volunteer. Over the years, he rubbed shoulders with Mujahideen leaders and he learned Afghan languages. During the 1980s, his love of America and his love of Afghanistan merged.

"We were living in an era in which the Afghans were trying to learn to survive," he says. "They were fighting for their survival in which a million of them were killed, a million and a half wounded. So, at that time, there was a lot of militaristic thinking."

The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in 1979. Its fighting forces were well armed and ruthless. The Mujahideen fought the Soviets throughout the 1980s with a lot of covert aid from the U.S.

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.

"We were providing education behind the enemy lines," says Goutier. "We were providing military support against the enemy lines. So this was a kind of coordinated effort indeed.

Do you really think that the Bush admin. is ushering in a "new era" of constructive engagement in the UN, by appointing Khalilzad?

user-pic

Man, Host, talk about content spam. You should really try summarizing things in your own words some time and linking to things you want people to read.

I appreciate your suggestion that my writing is good enough to be paid for by such high-grossing corporations. But the truth is, Zalmay is going to do what the White House wants him to do. So, while your criticisms of Zalmay the man and the legacy are legit (and I've written about these, too, at RAW STORY, though not in as much detail as you), they don't have much to do with the outcome of his tenure at the UN.

I want the Bush/Cheney empire to end as much as you do. But the truth is, in the two years we have left, there are other things that are going to have to happen. The issue of UN reform is in the brief of the UN ambassador - it's not something that the White House is going to make decisions about, in contrast to the major Security Council issues that Khalilzad will be overseeing.

Khalilzad is not going to sit down and go through every single UN reform issue and work to knock it down, one by one. He's going to play by the rules of the institution, and let his competent and committed New York-based staff handle the reform stuff. And that's crucial. The UN is an important institution that needs to be improved. And when someone as hostile to the UN as John Bolton is trying to cause death to the UN by a thousand tracked changes, the organization is going to be worse off.

For that reason alone, Khalilzad is going to be a vast improvement over what transpired for the previous year and a half.

Leave a comment

Michael Roston

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address