ALOK31
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 572
- Reaction score
- 0
Hillary Mann Leverett has more than two decades of experience in the US foreign policy-making. A regular on the TV channels, she has worked on Arab and Iranian issues under the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. A popular face in the US TV channels, she spoke exclusively to THE WEEK. Excerpts
Was the issue of Libya discussed properly in the Florida debate?
The US armed anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya. Did American weapons land with the terrorists in Libya? Did terrorists use the US-supplied weapons to kill our ambassador in Benghazi? Those are the biggest questions in the US foreign policy circle, but these questions were not even discussed in Florida between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Why is there such a consensus on foreign policy?
Because the US foreign policy is a structural issue. The policy springs from the idea of exceptionalism of the USthat is the US is an exceptional power that gained the right to set things right all over the world to safeguard peace and order.
What is next on Iran?
The US cripple Iran policy has created more supporters of Iran in the region from the Gulf to Egypt than Iran ever had in the past. The US diplomats are daydreaming over an isolated Iran. In reality, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and the vast Shia population of the Gulf, Lebanon, Syria depend on Iran. Iran is the biggest power of the region. After the Muslim brotherhood came to power in Cairo, they opened the Suez canal to Iranian military movements. Due to ideology of exceptionalism, there is no accountability of such major policy misfire in Washington, DC.
You told Christiane Amanpour that US opposing scientific research in nuclear energy will have region-wide implications.
Yes. As long as the Arab countries were not participatory, the Arab rulers were able to suppress legitimate scientific aspirations of their people. But, as these countries become more participatory, their rulers will find it difficult to deny legitimate scientific aspirations of their people. So the US can oppose n-weapons. But opposing scientific research in n-energy might send a wrong message to the region.
Why is the US (which used to take on giants like USSR) fighting smaller powers?
As per international theory, a superpower will always keep running into challengers. Iraq which challenged and refused to be integrated was destroyed by the US. Preservation of the superpower status of the US is the primary goal of the US politics in the UN. Today US is battling with Iran. Some decades earlier, China and India were the main challenges before the US policymakers.
Do you think the US wants India in the UN Security Council (UNSC) as a permanent member?
I have worked in the US state department, and the truth is that the US does not want India in the UNSC, because it amounts to succumbing to a diplomatic victory for India. Please remember, India was a major challenger to the US till some years ago. The support from the US for India in the UNSC is aimed to keep France and UK on track of support, as both labour and socialist tendencies which are viewed as long term problems for the US.
Do you think the treatment of nuclear ambition of India in the past is reminiscent of the US treatment of countries like Iran?
India had not signed NPT but Iran did, hence the difference mattered in crafting the US strategies to the two cases. But the basic attitude towards those countries is samedeny them the international framework of cooperation; deny them the regime of science; keep them and their nuclear energy programmes under sanctions.
What are the consequences of rise of Iran for the US?
Thanks to Arab Spring, Israel's security is in threat. Israel always looks for support. Till 1967, it had support from France and after that the US became the main guarantor. Insecure Israel means threat to US.
Will there be a conflict in the Gulf?
Unfortunately, that is the trajectory that Iran-US relation has taken. On Iran, the US has to make a major realignment like it did with China, which led to the end of the Vietnam war. In case of China that realignment came after 50,000 troops had died in Vietnam. I hope in case of Iran that will happen before such a historic tragedy.
The Week | US does not want India in Security Council
Was the issue of Libya discussed properly in the Florida debate?
The US armed anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya. Did American weapons land with the terrorists in Libya? Did terrorists use the US-supplied weapons to kill our ambassador in Benghazi? Those are the biggest questions in the US foreign policy circle, but these questions were not even discussed in Florida between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Why is there such a consensus on foreign policy?
Because the US foreign policy is a structural issue. The policy springs from the idea of exceptionalism of the USthat is the US is an exceptional power that gained the right to set things right all over the world to safeguard peace and order.
What is next on Iran?
The US cripple Iran policy has created more supporters of Iran in the region from the Gulf to Egypt than Iran ever had in the past. The US diplomats are daydreaming over an isolated Iran. In reality, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and the vast Shia population of the Gulf, Lebanon, Syria depend on Iran. Iran is the biggest power of the region. After the Muslim brotherhood came to power in Cairo, they opened the Suez canal to Iranian military movements. Due to ideology of exceptionalism, there is no accountability of such major policy misfire in Washington, DC.
You told Christiane Amanpour that US opposing scientific research in nuclear energy will have region-wide implications.
Yes. As long as the Arab countries were not participatory, the Arab rulers were able to suppress legitimate scientific aspirations of their people. But, as these countries become more participatory, their rulers will find it difficult to deny legitimate scientific aspirations of their people. So the US can oppose n-weapons. But opposing scientific research in n-energy might send a wrong message to the region.
Why is the US (which used to take on giants like USSR) fighting smaller powers?
As per international theory, a superpower will always keep running into challengers. Iraq which challenged and refused to be integrated was destroyed by the US. Preservation of the superpower status of the US is the primary goal of the US politics in the UN. Today US is battling with Iran. Some decades earlier, China and India were the main challenges before the US policymakers.
Do you think the US wants India in the UN Security Council (UNSC) as a permanent member?
I have worked in the US state department, and the truth is that the US does not want India in the UNSC, because it amounts to succumbing to a diplomatic victory for India. Please remember, India was a major challenger to the US till some years ago. The support from the US for India in the UNSC is aimed to keep France and UK on track of support, as both labour and socialist tendencies which are viewed as long term problems for the US.
Do you think the treatment of nuclear ambition of India in the past is reminiscent of the US treatment of countries like Iran?
India had not signed NPT but Iran did, hence the difference mattered in crafting the US strategies to the two cases. But the basic attitude towards those countries is samedeny them the international framework of cooperation; deny them the regime of science; keep them and their nuclear energy programmes under sanctions.
What are the consequences of rise of Iran for the US?
Thanks to Arab Spring, Israel's security is in threat. Israel always looks for support. Till 1967, it had support from France and after that the US became the main guarantor. Insecure Israel means threat to US.
Will there be a conflict in the Gulf?
Unfortunately, that is the trajectory that Iran-US relation has taken. On Iran, the US has to make a major realignment like it did with China, which led to the end of the Vietnam war. In case of China that realignment came after 50,000 troops had died in Vietnam. I hope in case of Iran that will happen before such a historic tragedy.
The Week | US does not want India in Security Council
But anyway, India is not yet ready to become a UNSC member. I think at some point, the framework of the UNSC itself has to change. No country should have veto powers. Everything should be put to vote.
