Walt on Conflict of Interest in Foreign Policy

[HHW]

On "dual loyalty"
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Friday, April 2, 2010 - 1:05 PM Share

Last week, the online journal Politico published a story by reporter
Laura Rozen on certain divisions within the Obama administration on
Middle East policy. What made the story especially explosive was a
quotation from an unnamed administration source describing senior
White House aide Dennis Ross as being "far more sensitive to
Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests."

As one might expect, this statement raised the old specter of "dual
loyalty," and from several directions. Critics of Ross suggested that
he was guilty of it, while defenders complained that he was being
tarred with a familiar anti-Semitic slur. Indeed, Rozen subsequently
updated her story with a statement by NSC chief of staff Denis
McDonough defending Ross and underscoring "his commitment to this
country and to our vital interests," an obvious attempt by the
administration to head off the issue before it gained traction.

How should we think about the "dual loyalty" question, either in this
context or in many others? To me this is a tricky issue that ought to
be handled with some delicacy, and we ought to employ a different
vocabulary to discuss it.

One might start by remembering that the phrase "dual loyalty" has a
regrettable and sordid history, given its origins as a nasty anti-
Semitic canard in old Europe. Accusing anyone -- and especially
someone who is Jewish -- of "dual loyalty" is bound to trigger a
heated reaction, and for good reason. Furthermore many people believe
patriotism (i.e., love of one's country) is a profoundly important
value, so any behavior that seems to be at odds with that principle
carries powerful negative connotations. In a world where nationalism
remains a potent doctrine, casting doubt on anyone's loyalty is a
serious charge.

More recently, however, scholars have used the term "dual loyalty" in
more analytical and neutral fashion, based on the obvious fact that
all human beings have multiple loyalties or attachments. Most of us
feel a strong attachment to our own country, for example, but we also
feel a sense of loyalty to family, friends, religion, ethnic groups,
sports teams, etc.). Patriotism is only one of these competing
loyalties, and does not necessarily trump the others. The novelist E.
M. Forster famously remarked that if forced to choose between
betraying a friend or betraying his country, he hoped he would have
the guts to betray the latter, and a 2006 Pew survey of Christians in
thirteen countries found that 42 percent of U.S. respondents saw
themselves "as Christians first and Americans second." All this is
just to remind us that "loyalty" to a country is just one of the many
attachments that we all feel.

Moreover, in a world where members of different national or ethnic
groups often live in many different places, tensions inevitably arise
between different sorts of national allegiance. Today, therefore,
scholars use the term "dual loyalty" to describe the widespread
circumstance where individuals feel genuine and legitimate attachments
to more than one country. A good example is Israeli political
scientist Gabriel Sheffer's book Diaspora Politics, which
distinguishes between "total," "dual," and "divided" loyalties, and
Sheffer shows that all three responses are bound to occur when members
of particular ethnic, national, or religious groups live in different
countries.

Needless to say, in a melting-pot society like the United States, it
was inevitable that many Americans would also have strong attachments
to other countries. These different attachments may reflect ancestry,
religious affiliation, personal experience (such as overseas study),
or any number of other sources. The key point, however, is that in the
United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments
in political life. Americans can hold dual citizenship, for example,
or form an interest group whose avowed purpose is to shape U.S. policy
towards a specific country. This is how the American system of
government works, and there is nothing "disloyal" about such conduct.

But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and
in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of
invoking phrases like "dual loyalty," a rhetoric that immediately
invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame
the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it
in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S.
policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is
not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they
feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the
United States may have important disagreements?

In many walks of life, we routinely expect people to recuse themselves
from issues in which their own interests or attachments might affect
their judgment. Judges and jurors are excused from cases where they
have clear ties to one of the contending parties. University faculty
and administrators are often expected to divulge relationships
(including outside consulting) that might affect their objectivity or
probity. We would also regard it as inappropriate if a financial
advisor recommended investing in a company owned by a family member,
and all the more so if they failed to divulge the connection. Why?
Because there is a conflict of interest.

By the same logic, we have valid reason for concern whenever someone
was making policy in an area where they have clear financial interests
(which is why public officials are often expected to liquidate certain
investments or place them in blind trusts), or if their prior
associations made it clear that they felt a strong attachment to one
or more interested parties. There are good reasons why a former
lobbyist for an oil company might not be the best choice for the
Department of Interior or the Environmental Protection Agency (which
is not to say that such appointments never happen, of course). Because
a public servant's responsibility is to do what is in the best
interest of the country as a whole, and not to favor the interests of
any specific group, we normally worry when an obvious conflict of
interest is discovered. And that same principle ought to apply to the
making of foreign policy.

Identifying potential conflicts of interest can be tricky, however,
which suggests we ought to proceed carefully. It would be
inappropriate, it seems to me, to disqualify anyone from public
service in a particular policy area solely on the basis of their
ethnic or religious background or even their family ties. It would be
wrong to exclude someone from work on South Asia policy simply because
they were a Pakistani-American or an Indian-American. Similarly, I
would not exclude a Muslim American, Arab-American, or Jewish-American
from involvement in U.S. Middle East policy simply because of their
background, or exclude someone who happened to be married to a Korean
from working on U.S. policy in East Asia.

But when an individual's own activities or statements give independent
evidence of strong attachment to a particular foreign country, is it a
good idea to give them an influential role in shaping U.S. policy
towards that country? If disagreements arise between that country and
Washington, won't this place these officials in a difficult position,
and raise questions about their ability to conduct policy in a wholly
objective manner? And even if they are sincerely attempting to advance
the U.S. interest, won't their sense of identity with the foreign
country in question incline them towards certain approaches that may
or may not be optimal?

To return to where we began: Isn't it obvious that U.S. policy towards
the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP
or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior
conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one
particular country in the region? The point is not to question their
patriotism, which is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether an
attachment to Israel shapes how they think about the peace process,
Iran, and the extent to which U.S. and Israeli interests are
congruent. Their patriotism can be above reproach, but their advice
may still be advancing policies that are not in the U.S. interest.

By the way, I'd have the same worries if U.S. Middle East policy were
turned over to key figures from the American Task Force on Palestine
or the National Iranian-American Council. When there are important
national security issues at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to have
U.S. policy in the hands of people without strong personal feelings
about any of interested parties? Ironically, someone like that might
end up pursuing policies that were better for all concerned.

[dsharavi]

On May 17, 9:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On "dual loyalty"
> Posted By Stephen M. Walt   Friday, April 2, 2010 - 1:05 PM     Share
> Last week, the online journal Politico published a story by reporter
> Laura Rozen on certain divisions within the Obama administration on
> Middle East policy. What made the story especially explosive was a
> quotation from an unnamed administration source

And, of course, it's all the fault of the Jews, in more late breaking
reports from Hunter "dual bozo" Watson.

[HHW]

> reports from Hunter Watson.

Clip insult.

There's plenty of fault displayed by Zionist Jews. And the term is
conflict of interest in government for which positions of influence
should routinely be denied. It's what the FBI and CIA should be
investigating with great intensity before approving candidates for
appointive office.

[drahcir]

Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:

https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9&
http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl

Here is the gist of the above thread:

The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
himself back then, put this as his subject:

"American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
anti-Semitic."

The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.

However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:

> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.

So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
PREDICTION.

If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
manly HHW fled, of course). If there is a soul here who disputes that
HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
why.

H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?

[dsharavi]

On May 17, 5:22 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 4:47 pm, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 9:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On "dual loyalty"
> > > Posted By Stephen M. Walt   Friday, April 2, 2010 - 1:05 PM     Share
> > > Last week, the online journal Politico published a story by reporter
> > > Laura Rozen on certain divisions within the Obama administration on
> > > Middle East policy. What made the story especially explosive was a
> > > quotation from an unnamed administration source
>
> > And, of course, it's all the fault of the Jews, in more late breaking
> > reports from Hunter Watson.
>
> Clip insult.

What insult? That was the end of the post.

"Clip" bozoic retort.

BTW, Hunter, did you finally absorb the correction to yet more of your
nonsense? This particular piece of nonense being your idiotic
assertion that Edward III was, somehow, NOT a descendant of Henry II
and Eleanor of Aquitaine, although both his parents were (several
times over, including his mother's descent from Eleanor's oldest
daughter by her first husband). You're welcome, O ye of the pointy
little head.

[HHW]

Okay, I'll accept that. Now, are you a descendant of Eleanor of
Aquitaine as you hinted?

[dsharavi]

Did I say that? I did not. I stated only that you're an ignorant and
arrogant ass. Thank you for agreeing with that most accurate
assessment.

[HHW]

Answer the question.

[dusty]

On May 18, 12:16 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl

>
> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> himself back then,  put this as his subject:
>
> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> anti-Semitic."
>
> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.


"The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
himself back then,  put this as his subject:"

What Kind of a name is "drahcir"?

You sound as you are faking a - stolen - mid-Eastern name, just like
you're - now - "real" name is faking a - stolen - Western European
name.

Before you got out of the ghettos you had very little aside from the
hate-filled Talmud. You were educated by Western culture, the highest
in the world. The better Jews then - certainly - made something of it.
Be grateful you Talmudic worshipping Kazar.

[Dusty]

By the way you thieving Zionist Jew: don't steal the titles!

[dsharavi]

The question "Did I say that?" Already answered it.

[dsharavi]

On May 20, 2:33 am, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 18, 12:16 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> > therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...
>

> > Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
> > The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> > himself back then,  put this as his subject:
>
> > "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> > for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> > assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> > anti-Semitic."
>
> > The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> > the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> > which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
> "The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> himself back then,  put this as his subject:"
>
> What Kind of a name is "drahcir"?
>
> You sound as you are faking a - stolen - mid-Eastern name, just like
> you're - now - "real" name is faking a - stolen - Western European
> name.
>
> Before you got out of the ghettos you had very little aside from the
> hate-filled Talmud.

Obviously, the Talmud is something else of which you are utterly
ignorant:
"Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that
whoever destroys a single life, scripture considers it as if he
destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, scripture
considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one
man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one
should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours."
"Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One,
Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all
resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be
He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them
resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to
say, 'The world was created for my sake"'.
BT Sanhedrin 4:5

Real "hate-filled"., ignoramus.

[dsharavi]

I answered the question. I asked, "Did I say that?" I answered, "I did
not."

Lay off the tequila, Hunter, you'll be better for it.

[drahcir]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:33:31 -0700 (PDT), dusty
<track...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On May 18, 12:16�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
>> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
>>
>> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>>
>> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
>> himself back then, �put this as his subject:
>>
>> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> anti-Semitic."
>>
>> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
>
>"The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
>himself back then, �put this as his subject:"
>
>
>
>What Kind of a name is "drahcir"?
>
>You sound as you are faking a - stolen - mid-Eastern name, just like
>you're - now - "real" name is faking a - stolen - Western European
>name.

LOL! So funny to watch an imbecile strain his "brain". Most posters
here have had the modicum of intelligence to figure out that it's must
my real name backwards.

>
>Before you got out of the ghettos you had very little aside from the
>hate-filled Talmud. You were educated by Western culture, the highest
>in the world. The better Jews then - certainly - made something of it.
>Be grateful you Talmudic worshipping Kazar.

Glad you got that out of your system? That's nice, but now it's time
for you to get back to your griddle, because the mcmuffin crowd is
gonna be here soon, and they're HUNGRY!!!

[drahcir]

Can anyone please help me decipher what the raving burgerflipper is
trying to say in his reply to himself?

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 03:53:22 -0700 (PDT), dsharavi <dsh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Really, Deborag? <G>

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:12:17 +0200, The Rectu, the resident,
psychopath of sci and scj, FAKING his time zone again and
IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:08:43 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
>sci and scj, FAKING his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his master, The

>Peeler, wrote:
>
>>>resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be
>>>He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them
>>>resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to
>>>say, 'The world was created for my sake"'.
>>>BT Sanhedrin 4:5
>>>
>>>Real "hate-filled"., ignoramus.
>>
>> Really, Deborag? <G>
>

>Really, The Rectum! Any other question you can clarify for me, a sick bastard?
><G>

No, psycho! I, don't think, there is! <B>

[plainolamerican]

---
of course, he's a jew ... and like all jews he will sacrifice American
interests for israel every time.

know the enemy.