|
07/13/2006
Kissinger and Hagel
Various foreign policy tidbits from the Summer 2006 edition of
The National Interest (TNI).
---
Interview with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
TNI: One of the issues of concern is whether a rising China will
“buy into” the existing international system, as opposed to
overturning it, as its power increases. The question is how do we
define the international system? What does it mean to “buy into”
the international system; what aspects do we want them to buy
into?
Kissinger: I question the wisdom of basing policy toward China
on the assumption that it is determined to overthrow the
international system by the use of military force. A more
accurate assumption is that China will seek to play a larger role
within the international system, politically and economically,
because of its rapid growth. And that is a challenge – of
competition – to which we should pay attention .
For the foreseeable future, China is unlikely to use its military
forces as the principal element of its foreign policy. And I don’t
see why it would be rational to expect that a China that is
surrounded by major countries with significant military budgets
would challenge the United States militarily and exhaust itself in
a military rivalry while it is doing so well economically.
TNI: What should the United States be doing to enhance its
global leadership?
HK: I would mute claims of hegemony. Any international
system that has lasted rested in part on an equilibrium between
powers and in part on consensus among powers. You cannot rest
it on one or the other exclusively.
TNI: Is there a danger that other major powers, including China
and Russia, may decide to work more closely together to
frustrate U.S. interests?
HK: In purely military terms, it is very hard to construct a
counter-balancing coalition to the United States. At the same
time, the number of issues susceptible to military solutions is
also shrinking.
Equilibrium has to be seen in terms of who lines up with whom
on international issues. In the Iran negotiations we certainly
cannot say that we have had an easy time achieving consensus.
There is a sort of counter-balancing – not in direct confrontation
– but in toning down what we are proposing.
Russia may be tempted to pursue tactical rapprochement with
China. But any meaningful strategic rapprochement with China
would move Russia further away from the United States and into
a position of dependence on Chinese support. This would run
counter to the strategic realities Russia faces on its far-eastern
border, given the decline in its population and negative
demographic trends.
We cannot be fixated by things that are in the power of Russia
and China to do. The wise American policy is to establish close
relations with both Russia and China. And we should conduct it
on the basis that whenever possible there should always be at
least equal – if not greater – incentives or prospect of risks to
cooperate with the United States than with each other. I think
that should be doable.
I do not see any sense in speculating how we should keep two
countries from working with each other that have the power to do
so and who believe it is in their benefit to do so. Our concern
should be, what is our relationship with these countries.
TNI: What about Iran?
HK: We have big decisions to make on Iran in the next year –
how far we will press the anti-proliferation strategy, and by what
means. We cannot succeed diplomatically against Iran unless
India, Russia, China and other powers are sympathetic to what
we are trying to do.
The first thing we should do is to get a consensus of the nature of
the Iranian program. Do we have one year or ten? Then we need
consensus on pressures and incentives available by diplomatic
action. Military action is the last resort. The Bush
Administration is right to keep it on the table.
TNI: Is the world safer today than during the days of the Cold
War?
HK: Today, I do not think there is a consensus on whether there
is one overriding threat. The international system is less
dangerous but less organized then it was in that period. Now it is
less immediately dangerous, but it is more structurally
dangerous. The threat, say, of a nuclear attack on the United
States may be less apocalyptic now, but it can come today from
many more sources than twenty years ago.
---
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Neb.).
TNI: You were quoted describing the U.S.-Indian civil nuclear
deal as “one of the most thoughtful approaches to foreign policy
in the last 25 years.”
Chuck Hagel: South Asia is potentially the most dangerous
region in the world. All of the most dangerous and combustible
elements are present. You have four nuclear powers: Russia,
China, India and Pakistan, and a fifth aspirant, Iran. The
Pakistan-Afghanistan border is the focal point for a good deal of
terrorist-extremist activity; the Taliban has been reasserting itself
and has re-emerged in that area. There are tremendous fault lines
– cultural, historical, tribal and religious – which run throughout
the region. One does not have to look much further than the
question of Jammu and Kashmir and how it divides Pakistan and
India.
I do believe that the agreement that President Bush signed with
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on a wide range of areas for
joint cooperation, including nuclear, security, economic,
education, agriculture and science, represents some of the most
creative strategic thinking we’ve seen in some time. At the core
of the agreement is energy – and the need for energy is the
driving force that brings all countries and societies together.
India is set, within 25 years, to overtake China as the world’s
most populous nation. If the Indian economy is to grow to
address this great explosion in population, a stable and secure
supply of energy is required. The same, by the way, is true for
China and other developing countries, not to mention for the
developed world.
It bears repeating that energy is the driving force behind growth
– and economic growth means more jobs, better standards of
living and more productivity. This enhances people’s standards
of living and their prospects for the future. This translates into
stability and security. All of this is interconnected. This is why I
think this comprehensive agreement is clearly in the interests not
only of India and the United States but the world as a whole.
This was the message I presented to Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf, to other senior officials of his government and to
leading business figures in Pakistan this past April.
Why is the U.S.-India agreement in Pakistan’s interest? It
connects the United States into South Asia in an even more
prominent and positive fashion than we are now. It makes the
U.S.-India relationship more stable, consistent and predictable,
and this can, in my opinion, only be helpful and positive for
Pakistan. I made it clear to Musharraf that this agreement is in
no way intended to threaten the U.S. relationship with Pakistan
or any other state .
I know the Pakistanis are concerned. In their view, they have
been a good ally – and they have, and we should not minimize
that. So why is a similar agreement not in the cards for Pakistan?
I was very honest with Musharraf. It comes down to the
proliferation issue. Pakistan has a very bad record, particularly
because of A.Q. Khan, and they acknowledge this. But I pointed
out to him that in the future the United States may be able to
work out some kind of an agreement with Pakistan
TNI: Iran is increasingly becoming the top U.S. foreign policy
priority.
CH: We first have to recognize that the world is now completely
interconnected. In a global community underpinned by the
global economy, we must resolve our differences rationally,
peacefully and diplomatically. The world is too dangerous to do
otherwise. Weapons of mass destruction have changed
everything. We must be very mindful of the fact that we live in a
hair-trigger world. That’s why these agreements and
relationships that bind us together in ways of mutual interest are
so important, because we all have interests in these relationships.
....Closer strategic relations for the United States with India,
Pakistan and other countries in South Asia will be critical to
address the challenges and opportunities of an interconnected
world.
That’s why I believe that the United States should deal directly
with Iran. We should be talking directly with Iran about the
entire framework of issues, including the nuclear issue. I do not
know of any other way to deal with these kinds of complex
dangerous issues than to talk. What do we have to lose, and what
are we afraid of? We are the greatest power on earth. We are
not negotiating with them in order to be giving anything away to
them. But by refusing to talk – this is what leads to real
dangerous predicaments, when you isolate countries, when you
don’t talk to countries, and you somehow think that you’re
accomplishing something. I think the world is far more
dangerous today in the Middle East than it’s ever been. And I
think part of that is because our policies have been wrong.
At first, the Bush Administration tried to opt out of the Middle
East. For the first two years of the Bush Administration, we took
a hands-off approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: “When
you’re ready for peace, come talk to us.” This latest issue is
now, “We may talk to Iran, but that will only be in the context of
Iraq.” Well, that doesn’t make any sense to me. What’s the
point? Who are we penalizing here? We’ve got a mess in Iraq,
we’ve got a mess in the Middle East, we’ve got a mess with the
Israeli-Palestinian issue, we’ve got a very dangerous situation in
Iran. So how do we think we’re going to get out of it, and how
are we going to put this all back together in some positive track
that is rational and responsible?
The Indians, the Pakistanis, the global community of nations,
they all want some resolution to the Iranian issues – but they also
want the United States to demonstrate leadership. Yes, the
United Nations is a framework and a forum; the IAEA will play
a critical role. But the United States cannot stand on the
sidelines and outsource to the Europeans and say “We’re all
together on this.” I still think it is critical that the United States
talk directly to Iran.
TNI: You have called for American foreign policy to be guided
by “a principled realism.”
CH: Principle has to be the anchor, there’s no question about
that. This country has stood for and believed in certain things
since the founding of our Republic. At the same time, we must
be realistic in appreciating that fact that we cannot impose our
values, our standards, our way of life, our government on other
nations of the world just simply because we think that our system
is better or somehow we are more virtuous. That may be the
case, but the reality is that it won’t work – and it never has
worked .
We have to appreciate the realism demonstrated by Ronald
Reagan. It is not a choice between giving up your principles or
giving in to someone else’s agenda. Foreign policy must be
grounded in our values, what we believe, what has formed and
shaped us as a nation. You work outward from that. But you
must have a very clear understanding of the reality of the world
as it is – and the dynamics of that reality – before you can frame
and successfully implement policy.
---
Hott Spotts will return next week.
Brian Trumbore
|
