Andrew discusses the direction the Republican Party has gone in regards to its foreign policy — 100% neoconservative. He is correct in saying that the
realist faction — those who believe that our foreign policy should be "reality-based, idealistic within clear realist boundaries, cognizant of America's mounting fiscal collapse, aware of the fact that power politics never ends, chastened by the Iraq fiasco, concerned about reinforcing alliances and maintaining a solid military" have their work cut out for them. He then links to an article in the new online conservative magazine Culture 11 where they advocate a much more Washingtonian foreign policy. The quote he selected is worth quoting in full, and the article itself is a must read:
They go on to say:
This, I believe, should be the central aim of any new Grand Strategy. It is a more conservative Wilsonian foreign policy; it encourages the spread of democracy, but allows for culturally relevant democracies in places that are different from the United States. This is a change from the aggressive Wilsonianism that Bush has advocated. This would position the United States to be a leader on global affairs without unilaterally (and futilely) trying to preserve its current hegemony in a world of many growing powers and without domestic policies being held hostage by foreign policies that are not in the best interests of the country.
Furthermore, the US needs to finally admit to itself that its hegemony is untenable and contra to most of its foreign policy interests. Because of the globalizing economy, there are many emerging powers. Some of these are not democracies. However, if the US seriously believes that democracy is the best form of government, then the way isn't to spread it with the sword, but rather with an effort to discover and foster conditions that allow democratic institutions to grow organically in countries. A more humble foreign policy that doesn't presume that the US has the final say in all matters across the globe would be a good start.
realist faction — those who believe that our foreign policy should be "reality-based, idealistic within clear realist boundaries, cognizant of America's mounting fiscal collapse, aware of the fact that power politics never ends, chastened by the Iraq fiasco, concerned about reinforcing alliances and maintaining a solid military" have their work cut out for them. He then links to an article in the new online conservative magazine Culture 11 where they advocate a much more Washingtonian foreign policy. The quote he selected is worth quoting in full, and the article itself is a must read:
"There are two Washingtonian principles which I believe should serve as the basis for a long overdue audit of U.S. foreign policy, certainly since the end of the Cold War. The first is Washington’s admonition that 'permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.' t begs the question as to whether the current configuration of U.S. alliances, forged during the Cold War, is still the most optimal way of securing key American priorities.
The second (and here perhaps the Address should be updated from merely referring to Europe to every region of the world) is for the United States to reconsider the level of involvement in the affairs of others: “it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” Are American interests served by involving the United States in a multitude of regional problems that do not touch directly on our affairs? And do we need to continue to divide the world into categories of “friend” or “foe”, into leagues of “democracies” versus “the autocracies?”
Such is alien to the Washingtonian ethos. The first president took as his guide the following: “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity and interest.”
They go on to say:
This, by the way, when reinterpreted in 21st century conditions, lays the basis for a renewed U.S. leadership of the community of nations — and works to restore confidence and trust in America’s judgment. Keeping lines of communication open, working to reduce conflicts, and creating conditions for the emergence of more open societies raises the likelihood of other countries remaining as stakeholders in an American-led global order. Washington would have been confused about the call for a “crusade for democracy,” but he and his successors, including John Quincy Adams, would have been very comfortable with the notion of “the great capitalist peace” (to cite the term coined by John Hulsman and Anatol Lieven) — where “all the major states of the world … have or could have a major stake in the stability of the international economy, the international trading system, the international investment system.
This, I believe, should be the central aim of any new Grand Strategy. It is a more conservative Wilsonian foreign policy; it encourages the spread of democracy, but allows for culturally relevant democracies in places that are different from the United States. This is a change from the aggressive Wilsonianism that Bush has advocated. This would position the United States to be a leader on global affairs without unilaterally (and futilely) trying to preserve its current hegemony in a world of many growing powers and without domestic policies being held hostage by foreign policies that are not in the best interests of the country.
Furthermore, the US needs to finally admit to itself that its hegemony is untenable and contra to most of its foreign policy interests. Because of the globalizing economy, there are many emerging powers. Some of these are not democracies. However, if the US seriously believes that democracy is the best form of government, then the way isn't to spread it with the sword, but rather with an effort to discover and foster conditions that allow democratic institutions to grow organically in countries. A more humble foreign policy that doesn't presume that the US has the final say in all matters across the globe would be a good start.
No comments:
Post a Comment