Latest news with #CondoleezzaRice
The Guardian
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Britain told US that invading Iraq could cost Blair his premiership, papers reveal
The stark terms in which the US was warned that invading Iraq without a second UN security council resolution could cost Tony Blair his premiership have been revealed in newly released documents. Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, warned Condoleezza Rice, the then US national security adviser: 'The US must not promote regime change in Baghdad at the price of regime change in London.' The meeting between the two took place before Blair visited the US president, George W Bush, at Camp David on 31 January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. While the US had not yet decided on a second security council resolution, Blair's objectives at Camp David were to convince the US a second resolution was 'politically essential for the UK and almost certainly legally essential as well', and to hold off from a February invasion until the end of March, according to a briefing note to Blair from Manning released by the National Archives in London. In a separate 29 January memo to Blair marked 'secret – strictly personal, very sensitive', Manning said he told Rice: 'A second resolution is a political necessity for you [Blair] domestically. Without it, you would not secure cabinet and parliamentary support for military action. She must understand that you could be forced from office if you tried. The US must not promote regime change in Baghdad at the price of regime change in London.' Manning wrote: 'I said that Bush could afford to gamble. He wanted a second resolution but it was not crucial to him. He already had congressional authority to act unilaterally. This was quite different from the situation you were facing. 'Condi acknowledged this but said that there came a point in any poker game when you had to show your cards. I said that was fine for Bush. He would still be at the table if he showed his cards later. You would not.' The Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the UN security council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. After Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Blair's visit, the UK's Washington ambassador, Christopher Meyer, warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. Meyer described Bush's message on Iraq by this point as 'messianic'. It was now 'politically impossible' for Bush to back down from war 'absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene', he wrote. Bush's State of the Union address had closed off any room for manoeuvre, Meyer informed London: 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In another cable the previous month, he said of Bush: 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers.' In the end, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a resolution, claiming the French president, Jacques Chirac, had made it clear he would never agree. In another briefing note before Camp David, the Ministry of Defence warned: 'The loosening of Saddam's grip on power may give rise to significant levels of internecine violence.' One of the key findings of the Chilcot report was that Blair had ignored warnings on what would happen in Iraq after invasion, and it rejected Blair's claim that the subsequent chaos and sectarian conflict could not have been predicted.
Yahoo
20-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
National security elites accept Trump is creating a new world order
ASPEN, Colorado — Six months into President Donald Trump's second administration, national security elites at the annual Aspen Security Forum have accepted that this president has irrevocably upended the global order. Against the backdrop of the leafy Aspen Meadows Resort, former and current U.S. and foreign officials, business leaders and analysts acknowledged publicly and privately that the Trump administration has dealt a lasting blow to much of the post-World War II consensus around free trade and long-term cooperation. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the closing panel of the summit. Rice is a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, which puts on the annual Rocky Mountains national security confab. Her words reflect the striking efficacy of the second Trump administration, which in its first six months has taken a sledgehammer to the norms and conventions that governed U.S. trade relations, use of military force and engagement with stalwart partners and alliances. It has also overseen the elimination of agencies that handle foreign policy tasks — most notably the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development — and slashed staff within the intelligence community, the Pentagon and the State Department. The administration has said these moves are necessary to create a more focused and effective foreign policy process that can prioritize American interests above all. But its critics have said the U.S. is reducing its ability to respond to crises, losing its credibility with allies and undermining the global economy by taking such a pugilistic approach to policy. Either way, attendees at Aspen are trying to adjust to an America First world order. The first time Trump was president, the national security establishment started out thinking they could influence his policy, and then assumed his policy moves could be easily reversed once he left office. Now that same group is struggling to come up with strategies to influence even on the edges, especially when the administration doesn't want to be part of the conversation. The day before the conference was scheduled to start, the Pentagon pulled its speakers, calling the conference a 'den of globalists' that didn't match the administration's values. In the end, only one administration official attended the conference: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. The other non-Pentagon official who'd been slated to speak — U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Syria envoy Tom Barrack — withdrew following Israel's Wednesday strikes on Syria. Boehler participated in a convivial on-stage interview with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins where he outlined how the Trump team addressed conflicting portfolios and argued the administration is moving in lock step to achieve key priorities, including freeing Americans held hostage by rogue regimes and actors around the world. 'I have a president and team that backs it up,' Boehler said of his efforts to free Americans. 'It gives me strength. When we decided to make a move, and the president decided to move on Iran for me, getting Americans out — that's going to get Americans out.' Given the administration's limited presence, attendees were forced to wrestle with how to address the president's many changes to foreign policy amongst themselves. The main approach at the conference seemed to be to at least avoid antagonizing team Trump. Much praise was offered for Trump's recent expressions of support for Ukraine and the success of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in deteriorating Tehran's nuclear capabilities. And Trump's overhaul of federal agencies and departments was met with resignation and even some optimism. In informal conversations, there was recognition from some attendees that the State Department was overdue for reform to cut through decades of bureaucracy. The main protest was about the manner in which the cuts were being made. 'They all need reform,' said a former U.S. diplomat who attended the forum of USAID and State. 'There are a lot of challenges with how the bureaucracy is set up, and part of it is because of congressional demands. But this isn't reform. This is just dismantling and shutting down government bodies … and poor treatment of federal workers.' The former diplomat, like others cited, was granted anonymity to speak freely about the conference. Panelists and attendees also embraced the need to rethink the way that the U.S. offers foreign assistance. In one session discussing the future of foreign aid, panelists agreed that the Trump administration's pursuit of access to critical minerals in Africa's Great Lakes region represents an opportunity for alliances with countries that China has looked to court in recent years. 'There are a number of questions that rightfully should be asked, but I wouldn't condemn it outrightly. I think there is an opportunity to be had going down the line,' Comfort Ero, who leads the International Crisis Group think tank, told the audience. Especially on economic questions, attendees and panelists were quick to note that the protectionist tendencies Trump embraces are gaining adherents across the U.S. ideological spectrum. 'It's a big deal that you've now had two presidents of two different parties take a protectionist line,' former U.S. Trade Representative and World Bank Group President Robert Zoellick, said on one panel. 'That is a very big switch in the nature of trade politics." Some attendees expressed frustration at what they saw as pandering to Trump, saying there was a missing opportunity to have more discussion on the main stage about the potential impacts of Trump's policies and governing style on U.S. democratic institutions and institutions around the world. A recurring theme across panels was frustration with Congress over its repeated inability to pass a budget on time. Such delays in passing a budget and a reliance in recent years on continuing resolutions have been blamed for lags in innovative defense initiatives and snags in securing contracts. The threats posed by China in the Indo-Pacific — which many Democrats and Republicans agree are pressing — came up in many discussions, as foreign officials and former U.S. officials warned that the risk of full-scale conflict with Beijing over Taiwan or other flashpoints had reached an unprecedented level. Still, some Democratic attendees argued that Americans aren't necessarily sold on Trump's vision for the world. On a panel Friday, Biden administration national security adviser Jake Sullivan argued that people on both sides of the aisle are too ready to read Trump's 2024 victory as a mandate for protectionism and isolationism. 'We tend only to read the signals in one direction. And I think that's not right,' said Sullivan, who noted that few people suddenly argued Americans were newly interested in the world after President Joe Biden — widely seen as a fervent internationalist — defeated Trump in 2020. 'I actually believe the American people continue to believe in principled engagement in the world, and continue to believe that our fate is tied to the fate of people elsewhere.' Few solutions were also being offered to the fundamental changes Trump is ushering in, cautioned the former U.S. diplomat. 'Especially on soft power, I'm seeing a lot fall apart but it doesn't seem like there's something else being built to put in its place,' the diplomat said. Some officials focused their warnings on the dangerous uncertainty created by the kind of reshaping of the world that Trump has embarked on. 'Any student of history will know the most dangerous phase is the interregnum between one world order and another,' said Singaporean Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan during a fireside chat at the conference. 'Are we in that interregnum? Yes, we are.' Nahal Toosi and Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.
Yahoo
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Condoleezza Rice: Trump's aggressive stance on Putin is ‘turning point' in Russia-Ukraine war
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice weighed in earlier this week on President Trump's ultimatum on Russia, suggesting it is a 'turning point' in peace efforts in the over three-year-long war in Ukraine. 'This last week was a turning point,' she said Thursday during a panel moderated by NBC's Andrea Mitchell at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. 'I think the best news that we could possibly give to the Ukrainian people is that the U.S. and Europe have finally aligned around the idea that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin will not be stopped with words,' Rice continued later. 'He will only be stopped if he believes that he can go no further, he can win no further.' Her analysis comes just days after Trump said the U.S. would impose 'severe' sanctions on Russia if the Kremlin did not agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine within '50 days.' He also indicated that a 'secondary' tariff — as high as 100 percent — could be added that would target nations importing oil and gas from Moscow. 'We're very, very unhappy with [Russia], and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in about 50 days,' Trump said on July 14 during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office. The move came after pressure from defense hawks in Congress, including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year to implement tougher sanctions on Putin's government. The two hailed the president's tougher stance on Russia. Rice, during the Thursday panel, acknowledged that enforcing secondary sanctions could be difficult — pointing to top Russian allies such as China and India — but said the Kremlin would likely still feel some pain. 'If you're China … with an economy that's not in great shape … or India, which really doesn't want to be on the wrong side of this, maybe you start thinking about whether that discounted Russian oil is really worth it,' she said. Trump has in recent weeks aired frustration with the Russian president over lack of movement in peace talks. During his time on the campaign trail, he vowed to bring an end to the war quickly, but has since conceded it was more difficult than expected In his remarks earlier this week, the president lamented on the struggle, pointing to the U.S.'s success in other ceasefire negotiations, including those in the Middle East and Africa. 'The only one we haven't been able to get to yet is Russia. And I'm not happy. And I will tell you that Ukraine wants to do something,' Trump told reporters from the White House on Monday. 'It's all talk and then missiles go into Kyiv and kill 60 people. It's got to stop. It's got to stop.' Despite the latest ultimatum, Russia has shown no signs of slowing down its military operation. The Trump administration earlier this month agreed to send more weapons to Ukraine so the war-torn nation can defend itself against the continued onslaught. The move was a reversal from the Pentagon's earlier decision to pause some transfers amid a review of the U.S. military stockpiles. Trump also announced recently that the U.S. would provide Kyiv with Patriot missiles and that NATO would bear the brunt of the cost for the shipment of weapons. Rice on Thursday criticized the Biden administration for taking too long to send weapons to the Ukrainian military after Russia's invasion in 2022. The Bush-era secretary of state told the panel that had the U.S. had given Kyiv 'everything' at the beginning, when 'Russians were on their back foot,' then Ukraine could have won the war 'outright.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How conservatives are reacting to news that Harvard could start a conservative think tank
News that Harvard University is considering starting a conservative think tank is being met with skepticism and derision by conservatives who see the idea as a public relations ploy as the school seeks to retain federal funding threatened by the Trump administration. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Harvard leadership had been in touch with potential donors for a center that could be similar to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, home to conservative luminaries like Condoleezza Rice, Niall Ferguson, Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. According to the Journal, a Harvard spokesman said the center would be nonpartisan and 'promote and support viewpoint diversity.' The cost of creating the center was estimated at between $500 million and $1 billion. The report comes as Harvard President Alan Garber seeks to stand up to the Trump administration while acknowledging that the nation's oldest university has lacked ideological diversity in the past and is weighing how to best correct that. A Harvard task force said in a report issued in 2018 that the school needed to make changes to be more inclusive with regard to religious and political beliefs. Danielle Allen, co-chair of that task force, later wrote for The Washington Post that those aspects of the report had been largely overlooked, and that 'We have been focused so much on academic freedom and free speech that we have neglected to set standards for a culture of mutual respect.' The Trump administration wants Harvard to have more conservatives on its campus, both faculty and students. It has frozen funding, threatened the school's tax-exempt status and accreditation, and wants to stop international students from enrolling. Harvard sued the administration in April, claiming its constitutional rights were being violated. 'No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue," Garber has said. In recent weeks, Trump has said that a deal with Harvard was imminent, but nothing has emerged, and someone 'familiar with the administration's views' told the Journal that the creation of a conservative thinktank would be seen as 'window-dressing' and not satisfy Trump's concerns. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Tuesday that a deal is 'getting close' — as is the court hearing, which is scheduled for July 21. But the Journal, citing unnamed sources, said that negotiations were hindered by 'repeated snags.' 'Decision-making around admissions and faculty have been points of tension, with Harvard resistant to ceding authority on which types of students it admits, the faculty it hires and what professors teach, according to people briefed on the discussions.' University of Pennsylvania professor Jennifer M. Morton, writing for The New York Times, argued that seeking out professors and students with conservative views would backfire, saying they would be less likely to engage in open-minded intellectual pursuit. 'Students admitted to help restore ideological balance would likely feel a responsibility to defend certain views, regardless of the force of opposing arguments they might encounter,' Morton wrote. For professors, she added, 'the pressure to maintain those views would be even greater' because 'your salary, health insurance and career prospects would all depend upon the inflexibility of your ideology.' Responding to Morton's essay on social media, Princeton professor Robert P. George said that a course correction wouldn't require hiring professors because they are conservatives, but simply acknowledging and ending bias against conservatives in the hiring process. 'I don't see how any contemporary academic can, with a straight face, deny that these two species of bias are largely responsible for the stunning — nearly unbelievable — ideological imbalances on college and university campuses," George wrote. An oft-cited poll by the student-run Harvard Crimson found that only about 3% of faculty considered themselves conservative or very conservative while about 77% said they were liberal or very liberal. On 'The Big Money Show on Fox,' Brian Brenberg, a Harvard alumnus, called the idea of a conservative think tank a bone thrown to conservatives. 'When you need something like this, what it tells you is the problem people have accused you of is true. You should never need a center like this, because the definition of scholarship is looking at issues from every single side.' On X, Matthew E. Kahn, an economics professor at the University of California and a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution, called the idea 'promising' but said the Harvard Kennedy School should have done this decades ago. And Hoover's Niall Ferguson said that such a venture 'would have no credibility whatsoever' because of the circumstances under which it was created.
Al Arabiya
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Longtime State Department spokesman, diplomat Richard Boucher, dies at 73
Richard Boucher, who served for more than a decade as the spokesman for the State Department and assistant secretary of state for public affairs, has died at age 73, according to friends and family. He died on Thursday in a hospital in northern Virginia after a battle with an aggressive form of cancer, according to two people close to his family. Boucher had been the face of US foreign policy at the State Department podium across administrations throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning in the George H.W. Bush presidency and continuing through Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's terms in office. Boucher served as the spokesman for secretaries of state James Baker, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. In a career that took him from the Peace Corps through Africa and Asia as well as in Washington, Boucher also served as US Consul General in Hong Kong during the 1997 handover of the territory from Britain to China and later used the skills he learned there to help orchestrate an end to the US–China spy plane crisis in early 2001. After leaving the spokesman's job, Boucher became assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia and was then ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retired veteran CBS journalist Charles Wolfson, who worked with Boucher for years, lauded him as an effective State Department spokesman but also a valued professional colleague and friend. 'He was a superb diplomat, an excellent spokesman, and an even better human being,' Wolfson said.
