Douglas Kmiec, Caruso Family professor of constitutional law and recently retired U.S. ambassador to Malta, answered a few controversial questions asked by the Graphic this week regarding his tenure as ambassador, U.S. foreign policy in the Mediterranean, the Palestinian statehood bid and the 2012 election.
Graphic: Having supported Obama so strongly in the 2008 election, how did your time as ambassador transform your view of his administration and leadership?
Kmiec: There’s something extraordinarily special about representing your country in a foreign country that manifests itself in surprising ways. There’s always the sense when you’re an ambassador, you have to transcend yourself; you can’t give in to your own opinion.
You have to be well acquainted with the view of your president, of course. But not just his view, the sovereign view of the U.S. as it’s trying to express itself at any given time. And that’s a serious responsibility, and one that weighs on you when you’re in the job.
One thing that I experienced in the two years I was there was how well-respected the present government of the United States is in Europe, and much of that positive good will is attributable to the personality, the vision and the actions of Barack Obama. In truth, I felt that my work was facilitated greatly by his presidency.
G: Do you think Obama has properly handled the Arab Spring?
K: Even the question is a bit metaphysical, because how do you handle the yearning for freedom of another people in another culture?
The best embassy practice anticipates the likelihood of political change and what it means for the region.
If matters unravel quickly as they did in Tripoli, we have an obligation to our own personnel, which is why we came so swiftly to the aid of our staff in Tripoli. And in every region America should stand for democratic, accountable government.
Sometimes we have accepted less for stability in the region, but there is a price to that. The reality of any debate about foreign policy is the scarcity of limits, the limits of your ability to address every situation with the same degree of intensity.
When we see oppression, in Syria or Libya, we want it to stop and we say so. But seldom is military intervention wise or possible. Do we intervene unilaterally? Not militarily, but we should be front and center diplomatically exploring every alternative to violence. And these things didn’t all happen in the same way.
But I think that the different level of attention [in regards to Libya and Syria] was just simply the serendipity of how that played out. But there’s no way for me to weigh a Libyan life against a Syrian life; there’s no way for me to say that one is more valuable then another.
I do think it’s just the nature of how the problems manifested themselves.
G: How well do you think the administration has handled the Palestinian UN statehood bid, as a strong supporter of Israel but also as a mediator between the Palestinian Authority and Israel?
K: I think the president is right, that the mere statement of recognition of statehood doesn’t resolve the issue. It does however, affect international attitude, and we have been promising a two-state solution for generations.
The people of Palestine have suffered greatly by its absence. The people of Israel have suffered by its absence. And when you look at the problem with fresh eyes, you say to yourself, “Why exactly isn’t this happening?”
There is a mutual interest in security, and I think President Obama made it fairly clear to Israel throughout these discussions that the [East Jerusalem and West Bank] settlement issue is not one that is moving us toward peace but is moving us away from it.
Now, could we have done more about that, in a more even-handed way? Probably. Some of my State Department friends have a hard time seeing both sides. But the president understands.
If I suddenly found myself as secretary of state or foreign policy advisor to the president, would I advise him to continue to insist that the settlement activity stop?
Yes, and just as the Palestinians would be sanctioned by Congress if they allow violence to threaten Israel, the settlements which delay peace and are their own form of provocation by Israel should be treated similarly by Congress.
G: Do you think he would ever have the political power to accomplish that?
K: Let’s look out at the landscape. What we see are a lot of people who generally don’t have anything to do with foreign policy suddenly being foreign policy experts in the Congress for purposes of gaining the applause of one side of that controversy that has a strong political appeal in the United States.
The short-term interest of the domestic politician is to get elected, and there is an unfortunate formula now that says, “Well, let’s just see the Israeli perspective on this issue, gain their affirmation and applause, gain their support for our campaigns, and we’ll be elected, and magically when it becomes our turn to be decision makers, we’ll do the right thing.”
I venture to say that that’s everyone’s internal discussion. The problem is, the problem is here now and it’s been here for a good long time and it’s not going to stabilize itself. The problem is, the people of Palestine can’t wait forever.
Their people are dying without adequate access to food and medical care, which is made more difficult to obtain because of entry points being blocked.
Abbas and all the people of good will of the world have an obligation to not close their eyes to this.
One of the positives to come from the reality is that you’re not going to stop the Palestinians from wanting what we want, namely the ability to have access to a doctor, medicine, food and materials with which to have a decent life.
G: What would you like to see happen in the next 12 months, as the presidential election approaches?
K: Well, I admire anyone who puts himself or herself forward as a candidate, but I haven’t seen anyone as talented and as capable as President Obama to lead the country among the competition.
Right now as I look at the stage of people who have presented themselves as leaders for our country, I see a leader who has been dealt a very difficult hand and has still moved us forward: in international standing, in terms of unwinding the very costly military mistakes of the past, in terms of reducing the terror threat and whose economic policies have kept the average family’s woes up front even if they haven’t been licked yet.
Unemployment is high, but that has more to do with his predecessor’s misspent trillions on violence than on roads, schools, hospitals and yes, health care. I think we’ve got a person of intelligence, of judgment, who is capable of inspiring our own people.
He is certainly extremely respected internationally. Would I want to set all of those qualities aside for what the Tea Party represents?
No, because what it represents seems to change daily, but at its core, it represents neither the best of the president’s efforts for common ground, nor even the best of Reagan Republicanism — instead of pride of nation, the Tea Party substitutes angry derision of nation, it questions the very idea of our founding that we could “have a more perfect union” to do what? Not just ignore the needs of our neighbor, but “establish justice.”
Barack Obama is the president of the United States, and he deserves to be returned to office. He also deserves the help of the Congress. As I see it, the issue of 2012 is more about ensuring that the next Congress acts responsibly, not with changing presidents.
