05/08/2008
A Different View of American Foreign Policy
Dimitri K. Simes, president of The Nixon Center and publisher of The National Interest, and Paul J. Saunders, executive director of The Nixon Center and associate publisher of The National Interest, wrote an essay for the Mar./Apr. 2008 edition of their publication. It’s a different take on America and its role in today’s world.
[Excerpts]
“A new conventional wisdom has emerged after the U.S. victory in the cold war in which history no longer matters and we no longer need to understand others’ interests or perspectives so long as we remain on the side of righteousness – and, of course so long as we can count on overwhelming military and economic power. And in this spirit of vain self-congratulation, we have increasingly lost the ability to look squarely in the mirror before judging others and taking them to task.
“After all, despite being on the right side of history, American leaders have taken their own share of ruthless, and even brutal, decisions. Each had its own logic, and most seem strategically justified in retrospect, but few continue to play a role in our public debates. Remember that the United States was the first and only nation to use atomic weapons – and used them against cities. Washington used napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. American leaders supported known-thug Saddam Hussein at a time when his regime used chemical weapons not only in its bloody war with Iran but against its own people.
“Such decisions, while obviously regrettable, were the result of the types of difficult choices that great powers must often make. But then it behooves us not to preach too loudly about our own sense of morality. It also means that, in crafting an effective foreign policy, we shouldn’t be blinded by our own rhetorical claims to ethical perfection – or to fail to recognize that many states see us as a ‘normal country’ – and one that pursues its own interests by any means necessary and often makes moral judgments about others that appear influenced by those interests.
“So those people who expressed disgust and outrage over the use of Russian airpower against civilian targets in the Caucasus were prepared to overlook Israel’s use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate bombardment in southern Lebanon. They loudly condemn Tehran’s disregard of the United Nations Security Council one day, but feel it is perfectly appropriate to ignore this body to secure independence for Kosovo.
“Supporting one’s friends while condemning one’s opponents is nothing new; but when that is combined with a messianic predisposition to view the world as divided into the children of light and the children of darkness – with no need to compromise with, understand the motives of or address the concerns of those deemed opponents – this becomes truly dangerous. The refusal of most politicians to acknowledge the clear connection between U.S. conduct in the Middle East and the hatred of the United States among Islamist extremists that motivated the September 11 attacks is a case in point. The United States has had serious reasons for pursuing the types of policies it has – but it is foolhardy to ignore the evidence that there are costs. The Arab- Israeli dispute is clearly a key litmus test of American policy for many Muslims – but this fact has not been a subject of discussion, even after being raised in the Republican presidential debates. And while plenty of experts on the region have made this argument, it is not reflected where it counts: among political leaders or even most of the mainstream media.”
Dimitri Simes and Paul Saunders also bring up the issue of China and Tibet; as in late last year, the Dalai Lama was celebrated in Washington, at the Capitol, no less, with no one questioning whether this was good or not for U.S./Chinese relations when China considers the Dalai Lama a separatist leader.
“None of this would matter much if the United States enjoyed an absolute preponderance of power and didn’t require the aid of others. That is, sadly, not the case. The cost of the war in Iraq alone is estimated at some $500 billion – and it is far from over – and other countries are not lightening any of Washington’s burden. There will be no multilateral rescue from America’s unilateral action .
“Americans may be interested in creating a utopia for the world but are not prepared to pay for it, and our democratic system is structurally incapable of building or sustaining a global imperium. And the responses such a policy generates – from terrorists and others – predictably drive domestic decisions that undermine our own precious democracy .
“Some will argue that anyone who makes a case like this – for understanding our foes and rivals, and admitting our errors, at least to ourselves – is blaming America first. We do nothing of the sort. There is a profound difference between identifying with one’s opponents and engaging in a sober and penetrating analysis of one’s own conduct in order to be more effective. The latter is essential to a foreign-policy strategy that will allow America to come out on top when it matters most.”
---
I will be overseas the weeks of 5/12 and into 5/19, including the Middle East. Next column 5/22.
Brian Trumbore
|