|
06/21/2007
U.S. Foreign Policy
One of my favorite political scientists is Dimitri K. Simes,
president of The Nixon Center and publisher of The National
Interest. In the May/June 2007 edition of the latter, he writes of
the need for realism on the foreign policy front and how both
Democrats and Republicans have failed to “question the
fundamental assumptions of American foreign policy since the
Soviet collapse.” The consequences of failure could be
devastating.
Simes also comments on the media’s role.
“The U.S. media’s propensity to cover international affairs
through the prism of domestic politics was a major reason for
this phenomenon. Those who had roles in previous
administrations, demonstrable connections to the current one, or
particularly good chances to join the next administration, enjoy
the best access to op-ed pages. The trouble is that while many of
these people have impeccable academic credentials and are
associated with prestigious think tanks, few are analysts first and
foremost. On the contrary, many if not most are members of a
government-in-exile aspiring to return to power or, alternatively,
people whose livelihoods depend on their connections to the
current administration, of whichever party. Such individuals
naturally and understandably tend to be very careful to avoid
defying the conventional wisdom and especially careful to avoid
saying anything that could make them vulnerable to criticism by
Washington power brokers in both political parties.”
Simes also writes of how in the 15 years since the disintegration
of the Soviet Union, particularly after President George H.W.
Bush left office, there has been little actual foreign policy
analysis, especially as it pertains to the “consequences of our
actions or debate about America’s purpose in an evolving world
order.”
“Just look at the language in media reports about U.S. diplomacy
today. The United States frequently ‘presses’ and ‘pushes’ and
only rarely ‘persuades,’ much less ‘accommodates.’ Washington
is almost never described as a leader that represents the
perspective of its followers (though the United States often takes
upon itself the right to speak on behalf of ‘the international
community.’) .
“The real question is not whether America should use its
multidimensional power to enhance its security and prosperity or
to defend its principles. Rather, the question is how Americans
want to define their interests and principles and how to balance
among them by establishing a set of priorities. While there is a
growing body of literature on the subject, there has been very
little discussion by politicians. This has been especially true of
the 2008 presidential candidates, who are reluctant to offend
potentially important constituencies by appearing insufficiently
committed to their narrow goals. With this in mind, it is not
surprising that the media give scant attention to understanding
our national interests in the new international environment.”
---
On the issue of democracy, and democracy building, Simes says
“the historical record is still ambiguous and does not yet
support the notion that democracy nationally or globally will
establish an everlasting paradise. As Lord Robert Skidelsky has
observed, ‘(Democracy) may perhaps be a stage in the political
life of a small group of countries, to be succeeded by oligarchy.’
.
“To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is not to suggest that
democracy’s alternatives are preferable. All it means is that we
should not turn democracy into an idol before which we force
others to kneel and pray.”
So what then is government’s role and what is in America’s true
national interest?
Simes:
“(The) number one responsibility of the U.S. government is to
protect the country from apocalyptic attacks, including terrorist
strikes with Weapons of Mass Destruction or other equally
devastating means. No non-NATO nation today other than
Russia is capable of an apocalyptic nuclear attack on America
and it is difficult to visualize a scenario in which Moscow would
risk self-annihilation. But that is today. The combination of
resurgent Russian foreign policy, an energy-driven economic
boom, and growth in Moscow’s defense spending set against
Washington’s propensity to support Russian neighbors hostile to
the Kremlin – like the Saakashvili government in Georgia –
could lead to regional escalation in the post-Soviet space that
puts the United States and Russia on a collision course. The
probability of such an outcome remains quite low, but since the
consequences could be catastrophic, it is important to watch
carefully. But neither presidential candidates nor the Congress
pay any attention to this issue, preferring to articulate an
inalienable American right to support self-proclaimed democratic
allies anywhere and believing that no one else should find this
objectionable .
“Likewise, little thought has been given to the implications of
China’s quickly increasing military might – beyond telling China
that it should be more transparent .
“The notion that major powers would expect something in return
after accommodating U.S. priorities is an alien and often
offensive concept to many on Capitol Hill. But if the United
States wants to remain the global leader, the support of other
major powers like China, India, Russia and the European Union
is essential. And this support cannot be taken for granted.”
---
Lastly, Simes raises the topic of “uncontrolled immigration,
much of it illegal, that risks changing America from a melting
pot to a tossed salad to the Balkans. If this issue is not
adequately addressed, America could become unrecognizable in
a matter of decades and, in view of the way the American
political process works, could have a vastly different foreign
policy perspective. Some Republicans in Congress appreciate
what is at stake, but there is little discussion of why, if we
believe we can police Baghdad, we cannot police the Rio Grande
at much less cost in money and lives. Neither the Democratic
candidates nor the Democratic majority in Congress have
anything to offer on this.”
Hott Spotts will return next week.
Brian Trumbore
|
