|
10/04/2007
James A. Baker
As the war in Iraq continues, it’s kind of interesting how many of
the principles of the Iraq Study Group are being implemented by
the Bush administration. Former Secretary of State James A.
Baker, III, was co-chair of it (along with Lee Hamilton) and is
currently co-chairing the National War Powers Commission with
another former secretary of state, Warren Christopher.
In the Sept./Oct. 2007 edition of The National Interest, Baker
builds “the case for pragmatic idealism” in foreign policy.
“A foreign policy simply rooted in values without a reasonable
rationale of concrete interests will not succeed. But our foreign
policy will also fail if it too narrowly focuses on the national
interest and disregards the role that democratic ideals and human
rights play in establishing a more secure world. These truths will
confront the next president regardless of his or her political party.
He or she will face an international environment in which the use
or misuse of American power in all its manifestations – military,
diplomatic and economic – will bear decisively on our national
security and on global stability.”
The United States is still the pre-eminent power, but it’s all about
how we wield it in terms of whether “we remain at the front of
the pack,” as James Baker puts it.
“Compared to earlier superpowers – ancient Rome, Napoleonic
France and Britain just prior to World War I – we possess far
greater advantages over potential rivals.”
The U.S. is the world’s economic powerhouse and remains “at
the forefront of economic efficiency, innovation and
entrepreneurship.”
And
“No other advanced industrial power – and no rising power
– can match us in the military arena. [Defeat of Taliban, quick
overthrow of Saddam.] .No other countries even begin to
approach this capability today, nor will they for years – if not
decades – to come. China’s defense build-up, for instance, is
significant and bears close watching. But Beijing is still far from
being able to challenge us in east Asia, much less other critical
regions like the Persian Gulf.”
[Ed. I disagree with Baker on this one. China is just five years or
less from being able to totally disrupt our ability to rule the
Pacific.]
But Baker notes that American might “is not limitless.”
“The history of empires and great powers from Rome onwards
provides an important lesson. Power must be husbanded
carefully. It is precious and finite. Spreading it too thinly can
lead to disaster. Choices still matter. We must be able to
differentiate between our preferences and our priorities, between
what is essential to preserve U.S. national security and what is
only desirable.”
Baker emphasizes he is far from a “declinist.” It’s just that the
challenge is how best to use our power in ways that both advance
our interests as well as our values.
So the former secretary has ten maxims.
1) “The United States must be comfortable with using its power.
Isolationism and disengagement are simply not options. We are
too integrated into the world, in economic and security terms, to
walk away from it.”
2) U.S. power is limited. “The United States cannot be the
policeman for the world,” nor can the U.S. solve every problem
in the world.
3) “Be prepared to act unilaterally when the situation requires it.”
4) “Appreciate the importance of allies.”
Baker says some might say #s three and four are contradictory.
Not at all.
“It is self-evident that it is almost always preferable to act in
concert with others. But when our vital interests are at stake we
must be prepared, if necessary, to go it alone – although we
should never undertake such action lightly.
“It is no coincidence that the three great global conflicts of the
twentieth century – World War I, World War II and the Cold
War – were won by coalitions. When we have allies, we have
partners who allow us to spread the human and financial costs of
any action. [For example, the Gulf War coalition of 1990-91.]
5) “We need to use all the means at our disposal to achieve our
objectives. One size does not fit all when it comes to foreign
policy.”
6) “But when a particular course of action is not producing
results, we should be prepared to change direction if necessary.”
“As the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: ‘Great nations are
too strong to be destroyed by their foes. But they can easily be
overcome by their own pride.”
7) “We need to recognize and accept that the United States will
sometimes have to deal with authoritarian regimes.”
It’s not a prefect world. “While freedom may be on the march,
some of the most critical states in the world for U.S. interests – in
terms of their military or economic power, resource endowments
or geo-strategic location – are far from being Jeffersonian
democracies.”
Baker notes the most striking example of this was our alliance
with Stalin during World War II.
8) “We must be prepared to talk to our enemies.” It is in our
interest to do so. “This is why we maintained an embassy in
Moscow throughout the Cold War. And this is why even so
staunch an anti-communist as President Reagan was prepared to
negotiate with the Soviets. His motto ‘ trust but verify’ remains
an irreplaceable injunction for any negotiations. Talking to a
hostile government, whether it was Moscow during the Cold War
or Damascus today, is not appeasement.”
[Ed. on this one I couldn’t agree more.]
9) Despite seven and eight, “we should be mindful that values
are important – but that they aren’t the only thing that should
guide policy.”
“Sadly, we cannot formulate or implement American foreign
policy according to the principles of Mother Teresa. Foreign
policy is not social work. Americans are often motivated by the
most altruistic of humanitarian impulses. But when the body
bags start coming home, it is extremely difficult to rally public
support if there is no overriding national interest.”
And
“Both democracy and free markets can be decidedly mixed
blessings in the short run. Economic reforms can lead to strains
that prompt populist backlashes, and elections cannot be counted
upon to produce stable, responsible regimes. The popular
success of Hamas among Palestinians and Hizbullah in Lebanon
are cases in point.”
10) “Domestic support is vital to any successful foreign policy.”
“The will of the American people is the final arbiter of foreign
policy in our democracy .without (their) support, specific
policies risk repudiation at the polls or, worse, public
disenchantment with foreign engagement in general.”
Baker concludes, “Our pragmatism should inform our foreign
policy.”
“Such a balanced approach can help us avoid both the cynicism
of ‘realism’ and the impracticality of ‘idealism.’
“Such an approach does, I am convinced, offer our surest guide
and best hope for navigating our great country safely through this
precarious period of unparalleled opportunity and risk in world
affairs.”
Hot Spots returns next week.
Brian Trumbore
|
