POLITICS-US: Latent Differences Muffled as Bush Team Settles In

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 2001 (IPS) - ”In the early going of any Administration, there’s a process of settling in,” the new US Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in the latest edition of Business Week magazine.

”When you want to find out how it all works, wait until there are some events, and then responsibilities are sorted out,” he went on, describing how it was that both insiders and outsiders will eventually figure out who in the new George W. Bush presidency will actually make the big decisions on foreign policy or international economic policy.

That, indeed, is the question on a lot of people’s minds one week into the Bush administration whose one major foreign-policy initiative so far was to re-instate an old Republican policy barring organisations which provide abortion counselling to women in developing countries from receiving any US foreign assistance.

Curiously, however, that decision was made not by the person charged with administering US foreign aid, Secretary of State Colin Powell. It was made instead by Bush’s political advisers in the White House as a partial payback to the Christian Right, which had campaigned hard for Bush in the general election.

While the aid ban may not seem like high politics ¡ and almost certainly would have been opposed by Powell if he had been consulted – it helps illustrate the kinds of turf battles which normally characterise a new administration.

In Bush’s case, however, interest over this question is particularly keen for several reasons, beginning with the fact that the new president himself is known not to have strong or particularly well-formed views about foreign or international economic policy.

That means he will have to rely heavily on his top advisers, most of whom not only are policy heavyweights with strong convictions of their own, but also have well-earned reputations, gained in past Republican administrations, as bureaucratic heavy-hitters who are not shy about defending their territory and interests by all means necessary.

They include:

– Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as White House Chief of Staff under Gerald Ford and Defence Secretary under Bush’s father;

– Powell, who has served as both National Security Adviser and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

– Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld who held the same position 25 years ago;

– O’Neill, a former top official in the White House Office of Management and Budget; and

– US Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Zoellick, a protégé of former Secretary of State James Baker, who served under him in top posts at the State and Treasury Departments.

Less experienced, but nonetheless important players due to their proximity to Bush, will be his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and National Economic Council Director Larry Lindsey. These two have been designated as responsible for, among their other tasks, integrating international economic policy with foreign policy, although neither one has experience in the other’s field of expertise.

The fact that all of these players call themselves Republicans masks the existence of serious differences on both foreign and international economic policy. Who prevails on any given question will be determined by the political strength of their various constituencies and the alliances that they can forge both within the administration and, on close calls, in Congress.

On foreign policy, for example, the right end of the spectrum is profoundly unilateralist in orientation and see military strength as the key to global power and influence. Rumsfeld, Cheney and some of Bush’s political advisers are found in this region. The opposite end of the spectrum, which favours more multilateral and diplomatic approaches to foreign-policy problems, is where you can find Powell, Zoellick and O’Neill.

On economic issues, the spectrum runs from ”Wall Street”, which generally favours free trade and investment, fiscal conservatism, and strong support for international agencies, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to ”Main Street” which believes that governments and supra-national agencies like the IMF should stay out of the free market. Zoellick and O’Neill lead the Wall Street forces for the moment, while Lindsay is Main Street’s man.

Even before Bush took the oath of office last week, these forces were already in battle. More laissez-faire elements in the administration, notably Lindsey, had wanted to deny USTR Cabinet ranking. But corporate interests, which poured millions of dollars into Bush’s campaign, quickly squelched the idea.

A similar battle took place over the number two post at the Pentagon. Powell wanted Richard Armitage, a close friend with considerable Defence Department and diplomatic experience, but Rumsfeld got his pick, Paul Wolfowitz, an outspoken neo-conservative and Reagan veteran.

But these skirmishes are just warm-ups for the major policy debates in which the administration will soon be engaged. Among the clearest are National Missile Defence (NMD); US policy toward Taiwan; the request to Congress for ”fast-track” authority to negotiate new trade accords; and what to do in the event of a new Asia-like financial crisis.

On NMD and related arms-control issues, the major battle will take place between Rumsfeld, a champion of Star Wars technology who regards the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia as ”ancient history”, and Powell, who in the past has worried about the diplomatic fall-out with Russia, China, and even Washington’s closest NATO allies of proceeding quickly with an NMD system.

While Bush is committed to deploying such a system, key decisions must be made in the coming few months over its timing, scope, and cost. Some analysts believe O’Neill may join Powell in urging a go-slow approach due to concerns over NMD’s 120 billion dollar price tag, particularly sharp increases in the Pentagon’s 310 billion dollar 2001 budget which Rumsfeld is expected to endorse shortly.

The alliances will break down in a similar way over Taiwan’s pending request to buy sophisticated new weapons systems to which China vehemently objects. The battle will pit Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Christian Right, who favour selling Taiwan what it wants, against Powell and Rice who will oppose it for diplomatic reasons. O’Neill and Zoellick could also be expected to oppose it on the grounds that it could complicate Washington’s increasingly important economic ties with Beijing.

On asking Congress for new trade-negotiating authority, particularly to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) and accords with Chile and Singapore, the administration is expected to divide over whether to include some language on worker rights and environmental protection that will make it more likely to be approved. Lindsay is almost certain to oppose it; while the more-pragmatic O’Neill and Zoellick may very well urge Bush to show flexibility.

The same breakdown is expected over how Washington will react to any new international financial crisis. While Lindsay has strongly opposed big US and IMF bailouts in the past, Zoellick’s view, in particular, have been very supportive, and O’Neill is considered likely to follow suit.