February 12, 2005 - The whole world watched, some with pride, others with disbelief, while others held their collective breath as they witnessed the maiden diplomatic mission of Condi Rice, the new US Secretary of State. Rice's whirlwind tour of Europe presented an opportunity for her to showcase her diplomatic skills and also for her European hosts to take her measure.

    The curiosity surrounding Rice seems to stem from disparate sources, some political, some having to do with her ideology, possibly her race, and also the fact that she is only the second woman in history to hold this prestigious position, and notably, the first African American woman. Perhaps equally significant, in the eyes of many, is the fact she enjoys an unusually close relationship with the president who was tutored by her in foreign policy in the months leading up to his first election. When you throw into this mix her controversial comments and contribution to the Iraq War debate, including her conspicuous comments about "mushroom clouds" to justify going to war, you begin to understand the dimension of the skepticism which greeted Dr. Rice as she performed her maiden dance on the global stage.

    It was only a couple of weeks ago that the US senate debated the fitness of Dr. Rice to hold the position of Secretary of State. Some who voted against her confirmation, including John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, did so on grounds that I find to be both credible and principled. Some see her promotion by Bush to Secretary of State from her National Security Advisor post as part of a pattern of behavior by the president to reward aides who helped him implement his flawed policies. Clearly, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the invasion undermined the moral or legal justification for the war, despite Bush's efforts to retroactively throw "democracy" into the debate. In like manner the US president promoted to Attorney General, his former White House legal Counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote the infamous memo that seemed to justify torture.

    So Dr. Rice carries a lot of baggage, at least in my mind, as she ascends into her State department post. So much so that when a white conservative in my office sought my opinion when Rice was nominated by President Bush for the position, my initial response was perhaps not the most diplomatic one that I could have uttered.

    Let me make a confession. I will not go as far as to describe my self as a liberal, since I hate labels, but I must fess up to the fact that I am somewhat uncomfortable with Afro Americans who describe themselves as conservative. To me, the term "black conservative" is an oxymoron or perhaps just a term that defines a misguided black who is either blind to reality or is untutored in racial history. With this as background, I believe you will appreciate my ambivalence to Dr. Rice. On one hand I admire her intelligence, her accomplishments, the resilience of her human spirit to not succumb to the racial oppression of her times and grow up believing in herself and her American dream. In an odd way, I hold her up as a model for a young and aspiring Afro American woman, and being the father of two, I say this from a rather personal perspective. On the other hand, I cannot help believing that Dr. Rice and other Afro Americans of her ideology are simply singing for their supper as they try to cozy up to the white conservative establishment where ultimate recognition is easier because the field is populated by relatively few blacks, rendering it less difficult to ascend to the top. I submit that I may be prejudiced in this respect.

    With this disclosure out of the way, I will go on to say that I find Dr. Rice danced gracefully on the European stage last week. That is, if you put form ahead of substance. Press reports seem to indicate that she handled herself with poise and dignity befitting someone of her intelligence and position. She did prove that she could be a good, if not a totally convincing spokesperson for her president.

    But the substance part is what I am worried about. Listening to clips of her speech in one European capital after another made me want to believe more than ever that in the field of diplomacy, the message is perhaps more important than the messenger. Her message across Europe seemed to have been that it was time to close the Atlantic divide, that Europe and America need to mend fences to pursue the war against terrorism and the spread of democracy, but mainly on US terms. There was no apology for going it alone in Iraq, no sensitivity to European sentiment that underpinned opposition to the Iraq war, or past and recent US pronouncements that indicate aggressive intent against Iran and other Middle East countries. What Europeans heard was the same old, hard line war mongering that has made them nervous, even if Dr. Rice went of her way to reassure them that the US has no plans to invade Iran "at this time". European opinion of the diplomatic messenger was best described in the headline of a major French daily that dubbed her "Madame Hawke".

    Advisors to President Bush have correctly, in my view, identified foreign policy as a top priority agenda item of his second term presidency. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a desire to undergo a transformation in ideas, or even to agree to look at problems, especially in the Middle East, from a different perspective. Think for a moment of several recent polls that show that people in the Middle East overwhelmingly believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace, while large segments of European opinion regard American policy unfavorably. Each side in this divide believes that it is correct in its interpretation of events.

    But if you believe, as Dr. Rice does, that we are on the right course with President Bush's right wing, hawkish agenda that is sugar coated with promises of spreading democracy and freedom around the world, I would recommend that you read "Imperial Hubris", a very revealing and insightful book about American foreign policy, as seen through the eyes of, and written by a former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, who wrote convincingly about why the United States is losing the war on terror. And will continue to do so unless there is a fundamental change in perspective in terms of how the policies of the greatest country on earth are viewed in the rest of the world.

    In Mr. Scheuer's words: " Until those policies change, the United States has no option but an increasingly fierce military response to the forces marshaled by Ben Laden, an option that will prolong America's survival but at as yet undreamed of costs in blood, money, and civil liberties".

    President Bush is said to be fond of a book titled "A Case For Democracy" written by Nathan Sharansky, a Jewish Émigré to Israel. His book which deals with the difficult subject of democracy in the Middle East, seems to have provided ideological cover for Bush to continue his campaign in Iraq.

    I just hope that for balance, both the President and Dr. Rice read "Imperial Hubris". If nothing else, it may embolden them to see the world from a different perspective. Perhaps this will help them better understand Europe.

    But I would not bet on it.