American Know-Nothing Diplomacy

by Daniel Pipes
Tue, 22 Jul 2003
updated Tue, 12 Dec 2006

Send

Comment

RSS

The Washington Post informs us in an article titled "For Mideast Envoy, Rookie Status May Be an Advantage," that the "lack of experience in the Middle East" of the new U.S. presidential Middle East envoy (or more formally, "Chief, U.S. Coordinating and Monitoring Mission for the Middle East peace process"), John S. Wolf, "is actually an advantage because it is difficult for either side to believe he approaches the conflict with a preconceived bias."

To back this up, the article quotes a senior administration official saying that "It's a good thing that he has exceptional negotiating skills and very little direct experience in the area." In further confirmation of this sentiment, a senior Israeli official recalls that shortly after his appointment, Wolf "was very humble; he said he knew nothing about the region and the conflict." By the time Wolf had returned from his first trip, however, "he was very well-versed, understanding the nuances and knowing all the personalities."

	Charles Crane

For those familiar with U.S. policy in the Middle East, this attitude brings to mind the International Commission of Inquiry (commonly known as the King-Crane Commission) dispatched to Palestine and Syria in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson to ascertain the wishes of the residents of those areas concerning their political future. Henry C. King's qualification for this job was to be president of Oberlin College; Charles R. Crane's was the fortune that his family's plumbing fixture company afforded him. It was not secret that the pair were monumentally ill informed about the region they were to investigate, yet that was seen as an advantage. An presidential aide explained that Wilson "felt these two men were particularly qualified to go to Syria because they knew nothing about it" (Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Vol. 11, p. 133).

The King-Crane Commission's report was, in the assessment of Elie Kedourie, "as ill-informed as its influence on policy was negligible" (Elie Kedourie, England and the Middle East: The Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1921. London: Bowes & Bowes, 1956, p. 147). Who would have imagined that 84 years later, American presidents are still in thrall to this hoary "innocents abroad" outlook? (July 22, 2003)

Aug. 16, 2004 update: Like the King-Crane Commission, John Wolf's diplomatic foray had negligible impact. Today he became the president of the Eisenhower Fellowships, a Philadelphia-based non-profit.

March 15, 2006 update: The announcement of the Iraq Study Group members again recalls the "know-nothing" approach. James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton serve as the group's co-chairs, with Robert Gates, Rudy Giuliani, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb,and Alan K. Simpson as the members. Not one of these individuals brings any expertise in Iraq to the table, virtually guaranteeing that the commission will produce a politically nuanced but strategically useless report.

Dec. 12, 2006 update: The Iraq Study Group Report is out and it is even more of a know-nothing disaster than I had expected. For a full analysis, see my article today, "James Baker's Terrible Iraq Report."

Related Topics: US policy

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/65/60ea1/781

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Title	By	Date
Understanding the Muhammedan Mind [520 words]	sheik yer'mami	Dec 22, 2006 20:56
President Jimmy Carter and his book on Palestine [w/response] [24 words]	marvin edelman	Dec 14, 2006 09:05
↔ JIMMY CARTER THE CRIMINAL [611 words]	Al	Dec 16, 2007 04:55
James Baker, innocent? [72 words]	J. Behar	Dec 11, 2006 19:11
These Creatures are NOT Innocent - They are guilty [117 words]	Jeff Burke	Dec 10, 2006 08:06
Innocents abroad [132 words]	Barry Tigay	Dec 9, 2006 14:30

Comment on this weblog entry

Name:	Email Address: Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments:
Comments:
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please. For complete regulations, see Guidelines for Comments. Top 25 recent comments Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

ADVERTISEMENTS