|
10/11/2007
Rudy Giuliani's Foreign Policy
Awhile back I reviewed Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy
principles as laid out in an essay for Foreign Affairs; now it’s
Rudy Giuliani’s turn, per his piece in the September/October
2007 issue of the same publication.
[Excerpts]
Rudy Giuliani
“The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy
challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory
in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to
strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to
destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the
international system in an ever-widening arc of security and
stability across the globe. The most effective means for
achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing
a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and
cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build
the foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.
“Achieving a realistic peace means balancing realism and
idealism in our foreign policy. America is a nation that loves
peace and hates war. At the core of all Americans is the belief
that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that proceed
from God but must be protected by the state. Americans believe
that to the extent that nations recognize these rights within their
own laws and customs, peace with them is achievable. To the
extent that they do not, violence and disorder are much more
likely. Preserving and extending American ideals must remain
the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic. But unless we
pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not
be achieved.”
---
“The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our
enemies. They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic
fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian
goals and aims to destroy the existing international system.
These enemies wear no uniform. They have no traditional
military assets. They rule no states but can hide and operate in
virtually any of them and are supported by some.
“Above all, we must understand that our enemies are
emboldened by signs of weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists
attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers
facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some
instances, we responded inadequately. In others, we failed to
respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983 and from
Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak .
“We must be under no illusions that either Iraq or Afghanistan
will quickly attain the levels of peace and security enjoyed in the
developed world today. Our aim should be to help them build
accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs of
their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and
eliminate the export of terror. As violence decreases and security
improves, more responsibility can and should be turned over to
local security forces .
“We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we
can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would
revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become
another one – larger, richer, and more strategically located.”
---
“For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and
Democrats has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly
more with increasingly less. The idea of a post-Cold War ‘peace
dividend’ was a serious mistake – the product of wishful thinking
and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this
dividend, our military is too small to meet its current
commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges
that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can deter
aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future
challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to
face aggressors, it invites conflict .
“The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a
national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on
Cold War doctrines such as ‘mutual assured destruction’ in the
face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore
the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know
they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with
ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by
increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the
knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and
destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less
likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs
and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is
well within our capability to field a layered missile defense
capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world’s most
dangerous states.”
---
“To achieve a realistic peace, some of what we need to do can
and must be accomplished through our own efforts. But much
more requires international cooperation, and cooperation requires
diplomacy.
“In recent years, diplomacy has received a bad name, because of
two opposing perspectives. One side denigrates diplomacy
because it believes that negotiation is inseparable from
accommodation and almost indistinguishable from surrender.
The other seemingly believes that diplomacy can solve nearly all
problems, even those involving people dedicated to our
destruction. When such efforts fail, as they inevitably do,
diplomacy itself is blamed, rather than the flawed approach that
led to their failure.
“America has been most successful as a world leader when it has
used strength and diplomacy hand in hand. To achieve a realistic
peace, U.S. diplomacy must be tightly linked to our other
strengths: military, economic, and moral. Whom we choose to
talk to is as important as what we say. Diplomacy should never
be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage.
Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our
adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those
who cannot deliver on their agreements.
“Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been
determined to attack the international system throughout its
entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and
seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between
supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the
protections of the international system when doing so suits it,
hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the
consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran
cannot possibly work. They could – but only if we came to the
table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.
“The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald
Reagan’s actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986: he was open to the possibility
of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere.
The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a
bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we
negotiate – whether ally or adversary – must know that America
has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand
that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining
popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy,
weakening Iran’s military, and, should all else fail, destroying its
nuclear infrastructure.
“For diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united.
Adversaries naturally exploit divisions. Members of Congress
who talk directly to rogue regimes at cross-purposes with the
White House are not practicing diplomacy; they are undermining
it. The task of a president is not merely to set priorities but to
ensure that they are pursued across the government. It is only
when they are – and when Washington can negotiate from a
position of strength – that negotiations will yield results. As
President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, ‘Let us
never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.’”
---
“In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the
world’s population will live in cities. I know from personal
experience that when security is reliably established in a
troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself:
shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on
the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding
community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs.
Disorder in the world’s bad neighborhoods tends to spread.
Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But
concerted action to uphold international standards will help
peoples, economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can
triumph over chaos if it is backed by determined action.
“After the attacks of 9/11, President Bush put America on the
offensive against terrorists, orchestrating the most fundamental
change in U.S. strategy since President Harry Truman reoriented
American foreign and defense policy at the outset of the Cold
War. But times and challenges change, and our nation must be
flexible. President Dwight Eisenhower and his successors
accepted Truman’s framework, but they corrected course to fit
the specific challenges of their own times. America’s next
president must also craft policies to fit the needs of the decade
ahead, even as the nation stays on the offensive against the
terrorist threat.
“The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the
twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to
gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather
than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against
overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned
that evil must be confronted – not appeased – because only
principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.”
---
Next Hot Spots 10/18.
Brian Trumbore
|
