Spies, charm offensives and terrorists in ‘05
But for U.S. foreign policy, all roads lead back to Iraq and the war on terror
![]() |
Breaking news alerts (about 1 per day) |
Find more alerts at alerts.msnbc.com |
With each successive disclosure, Americans have had to confront fundamental questions about how much privacy they are willing to sacrifice in a post-9/11 world.
Does there have to be a trade-off between national security and personal freedom? The administration's answer this year has been a resounding "yes." Critics, including many legal experts, disagree.
Aggressive stance telegraphed
President Bush's aggressive approach to covert action was foreshadowed in his public statements. He set the tone for a muscular foreign policy this year in an inaugural address that projected advancing democracy throughout the world with the declaration: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Although he added that "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way," the thrust of his message was unmistakable: "Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are, the future leaders of your free country."
Against a backdrop of two wars in his first term — in Afghanistan and Iraq — people around the world understood him to mean that the United States would help them advance the cause of freedom and human rights.
The president had hoped that his newly nominated secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, would attend the inaugural in her new role. But in a hint of conflicts that would come to dominate the year in foreign policy, Senate Democrats delayed a vote, citing Rice's advocacy for going to war in Iraq and her willingness as national security advisor to embrace faulty intelligence about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Charm offensive
When Rice was finally sworn in on Jan. 26, she moved quickly to put her stamp on American diplomacy. After four years of tensions with Europe over Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the nettlesome issue of global warming, the new secretary of state embarked on a charm offensive to woo European skeptics.
French President Jacques Chirac kissed her hand. At a joint appearance in Berlin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder appeared to be flirting like a schoolboy. Leaders of NATO and the European Union were smitten.
She re-engaged in the Middle East, after years of "benign neglect" when the White House — ironically, with Rice as national security adviser — countermanded Colin Powell's attempts at diplomacy.
She authorized U.S. support for European negotiations to try to "denuclearize" Iran. And she permitted American diplomats to reopen informal bilateral contacts with North Korea, under the guise of multi-party talks. Her predecessor's supporters noted with grim irony that she was conducting a "Powell foreign policy" after years of vetoing those same initiatives from her previous perch in the White House.
Rice's softer diplomacy began to pay dividends. And it didn't take long for evidence to appear that people were taking the Bush doctrine of "freedom on the march" to heart.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM 2005 YEAR IN REVIEW |
| Add 2005 Year in Review headlines to your news reader: |
Boost your career with an online Degree. Pick from Leading Colleges!
www.EarnMyDegree.com
Sponsored links
Resource guide




