W.'s Risky Foreign Policy
By Sam Parry
The election of Ariel Sharon as Israel’s prime minister – and heightened
tensions in the Middle East – could present George W. Bush with his first
foreign policy challenge, though it's certain to be only one of many tests
for Bush’s limited understanding of the world.
Despised by the Arab world for the bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Sharon
has vowed to crack down on Palestinian protests and to bring security to
Israeli territory. Sharon's hard-line stance means at least a short-term
suspension of comprehensive peace talks and possibly worse.
Further complicating the Middle East picture is Bush’s indication that he
intends to take a harder line against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, his father’s
old nemesis whose survival apparently is viewed as an affront to the Bush
family. A confrontation with Saddam could be seen as a way for Bush to prove
his mettle in foreign affairs and cement his bond with the American people.
But Bush’s basic ignorance of the world – its geography, its peoples, its
leaders and the delicate geopolitical balances that exist in region after
region – could be a more long-lasting danger. Consider just some of the
foreign policy issues that Bush will face in his term: the choice between the
anti-ballistic missile treaty and an anti-missile "shield"; nuclear
proliferation in the developing world; global resource depletion; the threat
of global warming; the complex balance between free trade and fair trade; and
the U.S. role in regional disputes, such as the Balkans and Colombia.
Consider, too, that Bush will confront a credibility problem in promoting
what has long been a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy: advocacy of the
democratic process. Bush’s decision to grab the presidency even though he
lost the popular vote by more than a half million ballots and only then by
having five political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court stop the counting of
votes in Florida makes America’s high-toned lecturing to others about
democracy sound especially hollow.
Given these complexities and drawbacks, there’s a fundamental question about
whether Bush is up to the task. Even Bush’s handlers have acknowledged his
limited first-hand experience with the world, with only a few overseas trips
under his belt. His ignorance about foreign countries – inhabited by
"Grecians," "Kosovians" – became campaign jokes.
During the campaign, Bush got a break since the national press corps did
little to pin him down on how he would conduct foreign policy. When quizzed
about international details, however, Bush did not fair well.
Asked early in the campaign to name the leaders of four hot spots – Chechnya,
Taiwan, Pakistan and India – Bush could only identify "Lee" as the president
of Taiwan. On the Pakistan question, he stumbled "I do know his name … the
leader of Pakistan … General … His name is General."
Beyond that, Bush has offered only a sketchy vision of his foreign policy,
more slogan than substance.
During the second presidential debate, he said:
I think we ought to be forgiving Third World debt under certain conditions.
I think, for example, if we're convinced that a Third World country that's
got a lot of debt would reform itself, that the money wouldn't go into the
hands of a few but would go to help people, I think it makes sense for us
to use our wealth in that way.
Or to trade debt for valuable rain forest lands. Makes that much sense.
Yes, we do have an obligation to the world, but we can't be all things to
all people. We can help build coalitions, but we can't put our troops all
around the world. We can lend money, be we've got to do it wisely. We
shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials. So we gotta be guarded in
our generosity.
The press generally let Bush get away with his practice of stating the
obvious. Few leaders would endorse spending money unwisely or trying to be
all things to all people or putting troops everywhere in the world.
The Bush campaign also defused concerns about the candidate’s wide swaths of
international ignorance with assurances that Bush would surround himself with
qualified experts. The fact that Bush will have qualified advisers is not in
dispute, though one would expect as much for any president. The question
remains, however, what will Bush do with their advice and how will he settle
differences that inevitably will arise among his advisers.
When faced with a foreign-policy question during the transition, Bush resumed
his practice of offering reassuring bromides. At one news conference, he said
the United States "will be a nation of free trade" and a model of free
enterprise. Then, seeming to struggle for the right words, he announced that
his foreign policy would be "present, but humble." To late-night comedians,
it might have sounded like U.S. foreign policy was raising its hand at an
attendance check.
Whatever Bush meant by a "present" foreign policy, his strategy is certain to
be tested soon. Bush has assumed the presidency at a time of rapid change.
The forces of globalization are squeezing the world into a smaller and
smaller place.
In the first few weeks of his presidency, Bush has added some details to his
vague notions, although perhaps sensitive to the circumstances of his own
"victory," promoting democracy has not been among his top initiatives.
Instead Bush has stuck to programs, sometimes using foreign policy to give
concessions to his conservative supporters.Less than two days into his
administration, Bush signed an executive order reinstating the 'Mexico City
Gag Rule,' which bans family planning assistance to clinics around the world
that offer abortion services. While popular with a key domestic constituency,
this move earned swift condemnation from the European Union. Anna
Diamantopoulou, the EU's Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, said
she was disappointed by the move and feared it "may be a signal of things to
come." In the first two weeks, Bush also dispatched his foreign policy team
to sell the national missile defense plan to our allies in Europe and to the
American public. The administration has expressed its intention to either
alter the anti-ballistic missile treaty or ignore it.Bush and his foreign
policy team are actively reviewing the U.S. role in the Balkans with the
expressed the hope of pulling U.S. troops out. He stated direct opposition to
the Clinton administration’s commitment to include environmental and labor
standards in future trade agreements. He has made clear his intention to
ignore the Kyoto Treaty on limiting global greenhouse gas productions. He
supported fast-track trade negotiating authority.Out of this mix of programs,
some Democrats have discerned a pattern. They view Bush’s desire for a
"present" foreign policy as akin to isolationism. Republicans, however, have
denied that Bush tends toward isolationism.But the argument over
"isolationism" may miss the point. In today’s globalized world, the debate
might be more accurately viewed as one between unilateralists and
multilateralists. From this perspective, Bush’s approach could be seen as
primarily one of unilateralism, asserting a position from Washington and
forcing other nations to respond to it. The approach gives "national
interests" clear precedence over "global interests." What is less clear is
whether Bush and his advisers grasp the full global consequences of their
actions. For instance, will the Bush II administration risk a new Cold War
with Russia and China to pursue Ronald Reagan’s old dream of a strategic
missile defense? That question gets even trickier given the opposition from
many traditional U.S. allies in Europe.Bush’s concept of a "present" foreign
policy seems to be aimed at reversing another trend from the Clinton
administration. During those eight years, the United States emerged as a
world economic leader, as well as the foremost military power. Nations from
Japan to Sierra Leone looked to Washington for leadership on the world
stage.Though it may be difficult to remember, in 1992, many international
observers wondered whether the United States was a waning superpower,
possessing unparalleled military might but weakened by years of economic
decline, hemorrhaging from massive government deficits, ripped apart by crime
and social unrest. Other nations, particularly Japan and Germany, seemed
poised to replace the United States as peacetime economic superpowers.During
the Clinton administration, the United States reasserted its economic
leadership, while bringing its fiscal house into order. President Clinton
also offered activist diplomatic leadership, and, when necessary, military
action to "put out fires." As the Washington Post said in an editorial
assessing the Clinton presidency, Clinton felt that "the United States must
actively engage in the world’s trouble spots, if not with troops then with
vigorous diplomacy, or risk larger diplomatic or military reverses."
[Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2001]While the Clinton administration’s policies
put the United States into an unrivaled position to benefit from
globalization, many Republican foreign policy observers, including Bush’s
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, criticized Clinton for spreading
U.S. foreign policy too thin. These critics accused Clinton of not setting
priorities and trying to be all things to all interests.Rank-and-file
Democrats had other criticisms. In a New Yorker article by Joe Klein last
October, Clinton described his trouble advancing his globalization agenda
within his own party. Klein wrote, "The real but diffuse benefits of free
trade were less obvious to working people than the specific jobs lost when
factories moved to Mexico or Asia. Most Democrats, especially those in the
House, shared this skepticism." [The New Yorker, Oct. 16-23, 2000]Clinton
championed what he called a Third Way – striking a balance between opening
markets and embedding protections in trade agreements for labor, human rights
and the environment. It was a balance that eluded Clinton through his eight
years in office, but he did grasp the need to temper the potential harm of
unrestrained free trade.Republican critics who hold key positions in the Bush
administration opposed Clinton’s efforts to add tougher standards in trade
agreements. These critics described their approach more in the way Adam Smith
described economics. Every nation, like every person, has its interests to
advance and defend, the process of which casts an invisible hand around the
world that makes the world stronger.This, in essence, is the central debate
between unilateralists and multilateralists. Is there a value in working
through partnerships with other nations, or is taking unilateral actions the
better approach?Bush and his advisers have talked about setting priorities
and focusing on U.S. strategic national interests, language that leans toward
unilateralism.By contrast, Clinton's National Security Adviser Samuel Berger
has argued in favor of diplomatic engagement to prevent conflicts from
gestating into full-blown regional and even global crises. "We have worked
for peace because we believe in defusing conflicts before, not after, they
escalate and harm our vital interests," wrote Berger in the November/December
2000 issue of Foreign Affairs.Berger is not alone in this analysis. In April
2000, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, chaired by
former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., released its
report, Seeking A National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and
Promoting Freedom.The report said U.S. foreign policy "must engage in new
ways—and in concert with others—to consolidate and advance the peace,
prosperity, democracy, and cooperative order of a world now happily free from
global totalitarian threats." But such benefits, the report warned, will be
attainable only if the United States works in concert with other nations to
"to stabilize those parts of the world still beset by acute political
conflict."
Despite the early tendencies toward unilateralism from the Bush team, it's
not clear how sharp a break will be made with Clinton's policies.Condoleeza
Rice has suggested, for instance, that the Bush administration push to
withdraw all U.S. peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. She said Bush doesn't
want the U.S. involved in nation building. But concerns from European allies
about the impact of an abrupt U.S. withdrawal – and concerns about the effect
on NATO – make it unclear how far Bush will go.Bush has been equally vague on
traditional diplomatic questions. In the second debate, Bush expressed
support for past U.S. interventions in Lebanon, Grenada and Panama in the
1980s – examples that many foreign policy experts view as aggressive
applications of American power, though all undertaken by Republican
presidents.Bush added that he didn’t think "the role of the United States
[is] to walk into a country, say, ‘We do it this way; so should you.’" But
aside from criticizing Clinton’s Haiti intervention in the 1990s to restore
an elected government to power, Bush offered no examples of the United States
acting in the way he criticized.In the debate, Bush said he would give
priority to four regions of the world – the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the
Middle East and the Far East. He left out Africa, a continent that the
Clinton administration treated with more dignity than previous
administrations.Many Africa experts expressed concern that Bush was turning
his back on the continent. Salih Booker, director of both The Africa Fund in
New York and the Africa Policy Information Center in Washington, worried that
"a Bush presidency portends a return to the blatantly anti-African policies
of the Reagan-Bush years, characterized by a general disregard for black
people and a perception of Africa as a social welfare case." ["USA: Bush and
Africa, the Coming Apathy," 12/13/00, Africa Policy Information Center,
www.africapolicy.org/index.shtml]
In citing his opposition to sending troops to Haiti in 1994, Bush made clear
that even within his priority regions – in this case, the Western Hemisphere
– he would make distinctions. Haiti is, of course, heavily populated by
descendents of African slaves.One area where the Bush administration has made
clear it will refocus U.S. resources is in assuring access to the world’s
energy sources. Whether the oil deposits are in the Middle East, West Africa,
South America or Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bush has vowed to
support new exploration and protect U.S. access to oil.One problem with
increasing access to oil, however, is that it will lead to increased
consumption. The more fossil fuels burned the greater the impact there will
be on the air, the water and global warming.During the second debate, Bush
displayed a poor understanding of the threat from global warming. At
