WASHINGTON: Ret. Gen. Colin Powell is unquestionably the most popular US Secretary of State in the last half century, if not in US history.

He may also have become the most powerless, at least since then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger repeatedly humiliated Secretary of State William Rogers during Richard Nixon’s first term, from 1969 to 1973.

Powell’s weakness has become so obvious that even the New York Times, a major fan, felt compelled to write a front-page story this week headlined ‘Embattled, Scrutinised, Powell Soldiers On’. It left the distinct impression that the only reasons he hasn’t resigned are his soldier’s sense of loyalty and duty and his value as a role model for African Americans.

But the fact is that since the Sep. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Powell has lost virtually every major policy battle — from the Middle East to North Korea, and from the Kyoto Protocol to the International Criminal Court (ICC). And he continues to lose them.

Just this week, for example, the administration not only withdrew funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) over the State Department’s objections, it also tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to derail a new accord — 12 years in negotiations — to strengthen enforcement of the UN Convention Against Torture.

US officials also confirmed that Washington has shifted from at least rhetorical support for reformist forces in Iran represented by President Mohammad Khatami — a position long held by the State Department — to essentially ruling out the possibility of any engagement with the current government. This new position has been urged by forces in and outside the administration favourable to Israel’s Likud Party since even before Sep. 11. Worse, it appears the State Department was not consulted on the change.

This past week’s events gave further evidence that control of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy is now held by a coalition of several interlocked forces. Its centre is based in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, with support coming from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, and, to a lesser extent, among the staff of the National Security Council.

Their worldview, according to Washington’s former UN ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, marks “a radical break with 55 years of bipartisan tradition that sought international agreements and regimes of benefit to us”.

The coalition consists of two highly ideological forces: neo-conservatives, a predominantly Jewish movement whose adherents are strongest in the Pentagon and Cheney’s office, and the Christian Right, a key Bush constituency that also dominates the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.

These two forces agree on several fundamental principles: they love Israel’s Likud Party and hate its Arab and Islamic enemies; they scorn multilateralism, the UN and Western European “elites” that criticise Israel or the United States; they consider a confrontation with China inevitable; they fervently believe the United States is an “exceptional” nation and a morally redemptive force in the world, which justifies active intervention in the affairs of other nations and the country’s unilateral pursuit of its own interests.

They also believe that this country, as the ultimate arbiter in international affairs, must maintain its unquestioned military dominance.

The third component of the coalition is guided by more material interests. Major weapons manufacturers stand to reap a bonanza from the huge rise in military spending that the administration’s increasingly ambitious and open-ended “war on terrorism” and eventual confrontation with China promise.

Outside the administration, the connections between these forces — particularly within Congress, the media, and especially in various think tanks — have become clearer since Sept 11.

The umbrellas they gather under include several think tanks — the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and the advisory boards of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and Empower America (EA).

All of these organisations — none of which has mass appeal — have inter-locking directorates and staff. It was announced this week, for example, that PNAC’s deputy director, Tom Donnelly, has been hired by giant arms-maker Lockheed-Martin, which also is a major CSP and AEI backer.

Richard Perle, a “scholar” at AEI (where Bolton was vice president), is a co-founder of JINSA, sits on the CSP board, and also serves as the chairman of the Pentagon’s defense policy board, a top-level advisory body that has championed the invasion of Iraq.

These organisations also work quite deliberately to co- ordinate and amplify their common messages through smaller front organisations and like-minded media, including the editorial pages of the ‘Wall Street Journal’, the Rupert Murdoch-owned ‘Weekly Standard’, ‘The National Review’, the Unification Church’s ‘Washington Times’, ‘The New Republic’, and, perhaps most prominently in the electronic age, the Murdoch-owned Fox (Television) News.

From the moment Bush took office, those messages have been aimed against Powell and the classic foreign-policy realism that he and, for that matter, Bush’s own father represent.

Even before Sep. 11, the coalition was behind a series of public and internal administration assaults on Powell’s positions: they chortled when Bush assailed South Korea’s “sunshine diplomacy” with North Korea the day after Powell extolled it; they declared Powell’s settlement with China over its detention of a US spy-plane crew a betrayal.

But the Sep. 11 attacks gave the coalition incomparable leverage against Powell and the realist positions promoted by the State Department and even Bush Sr’s national security adviser, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft.

Just one week after the attacks, PNAC drafted an open letter, published in the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard, calling for Bush to extend the “war on terrorism” to Iraq, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

Considered ludicrous and potentially disastrous by State Department and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) experts, that manifesto has essentially become policy, over Powell’s objections.—Dawn/ InterPress News Service.