+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Time is up for Bush's foreign policy

  1. #1
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,528
    Country: India

    Time is up for Bush's foreign policy

    This marks the beginning of an end - and the end of a beginning


    Time is up for Bush's foreign policy. The US must now try to forge a bipartisan, multilateral approach. Here's how

    Timothy Garton Ash
    Thursday November 9, 2006
    The Guardian

    Tuesday November 7 2006 marks the beginning of an end and the end of a beginning. A Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and a Senate too close to call, means the beginning of the end of the Bush administration and its unilateral, polarising style in foreign policy - exemplified by the now departing Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. More importantly, it marks the end of the beginning of a long struggle for which we do not yet have a generally accepted name. From now on, given the result of these mid-term elections, the mess that the United States faces in the Middle East, the scale of global challenges such as climate change and the rise of other great powers, American foreign policy will have to be more bipartisan at home and more multilateral abroad.

    Five years after 1945, following a period of trial and error, the government of the United States produced a seminal national security memorandum, NSC-68, which set the course for a generally bipartisan American strategy in what we came to call the cold war. Five years after September 11 2001, the US does not yet have such a consensus - but its possible outlines may be found in the final paper of a programmatically bipartisan project on US national security based at the Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton University.

    With an idealism of which Wilson would have approved, the paper is entitled "Forging a World of Liberty under Law" - and its emphasis on the importance of law, both inside states and between them, presents a sharp contrast to the Bush administration's war on terror à la Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. The international liberal order that this bipartisan group advocates would be founded on what the second president of the United States, John Adams, memorably called the "government of laws not of men". Attempting to combine Wilsonian idealism with Kissingerite realism, it takes on board many of the criticisms that have been made by lower-case democrats outside the United States and upper-case Democrats inside the US over the past five years.

    Yet it is distinctly harder-edged than the position of many leftwing Democrats and democrats. The results of these elections suggest that is where many American voters want their government to be. The Democrats only did so well by fielding many centrist candidates talking tough on national security. Their outspokenly anti-war Senate candidate for Connecticut, Ned Lamont, was defeated by Joe Lieberman, who notoriously got kissed by President Bush for supporting the Iraq war.

    The Princeton paper describes itself as an attempt to do collectively what George Kennan did individually in his famous "Mr X" article, prefiguring American cold war strategy. It argues that the three strategic priorities of American policy should be a secure homeland, a healthy global economy, and "a benign international environment, grounded in security cooperation among nations and the spread of liberal democracy". Liberty and law both need to be backed up ultimately by the use of force, so it suggests a "global counterinsurgency" strategy against global terror networks and tough measures against nuclear proliferation. It argues, however, that rather than overrelying on the single instrument of military force - perhaps the biggest error of the last five years - American policy should be multidimensional, "operating like a Swiss army knife, able to deploy different tools for different situations on a moment's notice".

    The new strategy should fuse hard power and soft power, be grounded in hope rather than fear, focused as much on what happens inside countries as between them, and adapted to the information age of 24/7 instant communication. Its three central goals should be pursued through what it calls a Concert of Democracies, for which the authors even draft a possible charter. Major democratic powers such as India, Japan, Brazil, Germany and two unspecified African states should become permanent members of the UN security council, though without a veto. "As demonstrated by both reason and social science," it adds, "a world of liberal democracies would be a safer and better world for Americans and all people to live in." (I like the implicit distinction between reason and social science.)

    It would be naive to suppose that this paper is going to become the basis of a new consensual strategy, any more than Kennan's article translated directly into NSC-68. There will be plenty more American politics around foreign policy between now and then. While George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in the White House, the rhetoric and the policy will change only so much - even with Rumsfeld's long overdue departure. A preemptive bombing campaign against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities remains a possibility. Moreover, Democrats in power could lurch towards political isolationism and, more particularly, economic protectionism. But the Princeton paper indicates the areas in which a bipartisan strategic consensus might be found, while these mid-term elections suggest that many Americans would welcome it. The United States may still be "two nations" on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but red and blue are mixing on foreign policy.

    What is more, this is an approach to which many fierce critics of the Bush administration in other democracies around the world could subscribe. Take a look at wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf and see what you think. Apart from the fact that it inexplicably omits climate change from its conspectus of "major threats and challenges", I think it's a very impressive attempt. But there remains a big question about how this strategy for a "benign international environment" and a Concert of Democracies is to be arrived at. Somewhere underneath the Princeton paper there is a sense that the United States should lay out a strategy for what used to be called the free world, as it did in the early years of the cold war. Where it leads, others will follow.

    Yet the Princeton project's own analysis shows just how much more complex and multipolar the world of 2006 is than that of 1950, and how much more limited is the United States' ability to set the agenda on its own. If that is true, it follows that other democracies (and democrats in less free countries) should be involved in designing the strategy, not mere recipients of it. The report concludes with an insistence that the US should do more and better "gardening" among its allies - a favoured metaphor of the project's honorary co-chair, George Shultz - but it may be worth recalling that the rest of us are not plants.

    As it happens, the two years of divided government in Washington, leading up to the next presidential election, will also be years of leadership change in other major democracies, with notable leaders such Manmohan Singh of India and Angela Merkel of Germany still relatively fresh in office, Gordon Brown about to move from No 11 to No 10 Downing Street, and a new French president due next May. To secure liberty under law, the United States needs to change not just its own strategy but the way it arrives at that strategy. The world's second largest democracy has spoken, but a Concert of Democracies can only be made by a concert of democracies.

    Timothygartonash.com
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...942905,00.html
    The Princeton paper apparently has pragmatic views, all of which need not be acceptable. But nonetheless, it requires consideration of those who formulate and guide the US policies.

    The world is in too dangerous a situation at the current moment. There are too many powder keg waiting for ignition. The gung ho, lynch the bloke wild west justice system can no longer hold good. Iraq and the confounded mess is a case in point of misguided zeal attempted with deliberate thought and on too many assumptions based on western ideals.

    Therefore, a relook if the US Foreign Policy is necessary since it will auger well for the world if cooperation instead of confrontation is also practiced in international relations and not merely on the domestic front.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  2. #2
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,528
    Country: India
    From the Princeton Project "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law".

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    In the first decade of the 21st century the United States must assess the world not through the eyes of World War II, or the Cold War, or even 9/11. Instead, Americans need to recognize that ours is a world lacking a single organizing principle for foreign policy like anti-fascism or anti-communism. We face many present dangers, several long-term challenges, and countless opportunities. This report outlines a new national security strategy tailored both to the world we inhabit and the world we want to create.

    Objectives: The basic objective of U.S. strategy must be to protect the American people and the American way of life. This overarching goal should comprise three more specific aims:

    1) a secure homeland, including protection against attacks on our people and infrastructure and against fatal epidemics;

    2) a healthy global economy, which is essential for our own prosperity and security;

    and

    3) a benign international environment, grounded in security cooperation among nations and the spread of liberal democracy.

    Criteria: To achieve these goals in the 21st century, American strategy must meet six basic criteria. It needs to be:

    1) multidimensional, operating like a Swiss army knife, able to deploy different tools for different situations on a moment’s notice;

    2) integrated, fusing hard power – the power to coerce – and soft power – the power to attract;

    3) interest-based rather than threat-based, building frameworks of cooperation centered on common interests with other nations rather than insisting that they accept our prioritization of common threats;

    4) grounded in hope rather than fear, offering a positive vision of the world and using our power to advance that vision in cooperation with other nations;

    5) pursued inside-out, strengthening the domestic capacity, integrity, and accountability of other governments as a foundation of international order and capacity;

    and

    6) adapted to the information age, enabling us to be fast and flexible in a world where information moves instantly, actors respond to it instantly, and
    specialized small units come together for only a limited time for a defined purpose – whether to make a deal, restructure a company, or plan and execute a terrorist attack.

    Forging A World Of Liberty Under Law

    America must stand for, seek, and secure a world of liberty under law. Our founders knew that the success of the American experiment rested on the combined blessings of order and liberty, and by order they meant law. Internationally, Americans would be safer, richer, and healthier in a world of countries that have achieved this balance – mature liberal democracies. Getting there requires:

    Bringing Governments up to PAR : Democracy is the best instrument that humans have devised for ensuring individual liberty over the long term, but only when it exists within a framework of order established by law. We must develop a much more sophisticated strategy of creating the deeper preconditions for successful liberal democracy – preconditions that extend far beyond the simple holding of elections. The United States should assist and encourage Popular, Accountable, and Rights regarding (PAR) governments worldwide.

    To help bring governments up to PAR, we must connect them and their citizens in as many ways as possible to governments and societies that are already at PAR and provide them with incentives and support to follow suit. We should establish and institutionalize networks of national, regional, and
    local government officials and nongovernmental representatives to create numerous channels for PAR nations and others to work on common problems and to communicate and inculcate the values and practices that safeguard liberty under law.

    Building a Liberal Order: The system of international institutions that the United States and its allies built after World War II and steadily expanded over the course of the Cold War is broken. Every major institution – the United Nations (U.N.), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – and countless smaller ones face calls for major reform. The United States has the largest stake of any nation in fixing this system, precisely because we are the most powerful nation in the world. Power cannot be
    wielded unilaterally, and in the pursuit of a narrowly drawn definition of the national interest, because such actions breed growing resentment, fear, and resistance. We need to reassure other nations about our global role and win their support to tackle common problems.

    However, it is clear that America can no longer rely on the legacy institutions of the Cold War; radical surgery is required. The United Nations is simultaneously in crisis and in demand. Its structures are outdated and its performance is inadequate, yet it remains the world’s principal forum for addressing the most difficult international security issues. America must make sweeping U.N. reform a political priority. Necessary reforms include: expanding the Security Council to include India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and two African states as permanent members without a veto; ending the veto for all Security
    Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis; and requiring all U.N. members to accept “the responsibility to protect,” which acknowledges that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from “avoidable catastrophe,” but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the international community.

    While pushing for reform of the United Nations and other major global institutions, the United States should work with its friends and allies to develop a global “Concert of Democracies” – a new institution designed to strengthen security cooperation among the world’s liberal democracies. This Concert would institutionalize and ratify the “democratic peace.” If the United Nations cannot be reformed, the Concert would provide an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action, including the use of force, by a supermajority vote. Its membership would be selective, but self-selected.

    Members would have to pledge not to use or plan to use force against one another; commit to holding multiparty, free-and-fair elections at regular intervals; guarantee civil and political rights for their citizens enforceable by an independent judiciary; and accept the responsibility to protect.

    The United States must also: revive the NATO alliance by updating its grand bargains and expanding its international partnerships; build a “networked order” of informal institutions, such as private networks and bilateral ties; and reduce the sharply escalating and politically destabilizing inequalities among and within states that result from the generally beneficial process of globalization.

    Rethinking the Role of Force: At their core, both liberty and law must be backed up by force. Instead of insisting on a doctrine of primacy, the United States should aim to sustain the military predominance of liberal democracies and encourage the development of military capabilities by like-minded democracies in a way that is consistent with their security interests. The predominance of liberal democracies is necessary to prevent a return to destabilizing and dangerous great power security competition; it would
    also augment our capacity to meet the various threats and challenges that confront us.

    America must dust off and update doctrines of deterrence. The United States should announce – preferably with our allies – that in the case of an act of nuclear terrorism, we will hold the source of the nuclear materials or weapon responsible. We must also ensure that our deterrent remains credible against
    countries with different strategic cultures and varied military national security doctrines. And we must find ways of deterring suppliers of nuclear weapons materials from transferring them – deliberately or inadvertently – to terrorists.

    America should develop new guidelines on the preventive use of force against terrorists and extreme states. Preventive strikes represent a necessary tool in fighting terror networks, but they should be proportionate and based on intelligence that adheres to strict standards. The preventive use of force
    against states should be very rare, employed only as a last resort and authorized by a multilateral institution – preferably a reformed Security Council, but alternatively by the existing Security Council or another broadly representative multilateral body like NATO.

    Major Threats And Challenges

    The Middle East: Preventing the cradle of civilizations from becoming the cradle of global conflict must be a top priority. Any long-term solution in the Middle East must include a comprehensive twostate solution in Israel and Palestine; the United States should take the lead in doing everything possible
    to advance this goal or get caught trying. This push for peace should be accompanied by a steady process of institution building to establish a framework of liberty under law among Middle Eastern nations. In an effort to combat radicalization in Middle Eastern states, the United States should make every effort to work with Islamic governments and Islamic/Islamist movements, including fundamentalists, as long as they disavow terrorism and other forms of civic violence.

    America must take considerable risks to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapons capacity. However, we must also be prepared to offer Iran assurances that assuage its legitimate fears, such as a negative security assurance, the reliable provision to it of peaceful fissile materials, and international influence commensurate with its position. On the other hand, the United States should make it clear that life as a nuclear weapons power, if it came to pass, would be a thoroughly miserable experience for Iran.

    The United States should make it clear to Iraqis that we remain willing and ready to do everything we can to rebuild Iraq and to train and support a government that is up to PAR, but that this will not be sustainable in the context of a full-scale civil war. In cooperation with the Iraqi government, America should establish a series of benchmarks that would allow U.S. forces to redeploy inside Iraq – to places where they can be useful in building order and avoid becoming entangled in internecine civil conflict – and outside Iraq. The United States must also work with the European Union and Russia to prevent a spillover of the Iraqi conflict into the rest of the region; this effort should include the provision of incentives to regional powers to behave responsibly and the imposition of costs on those countries that
    exacerbate the crisis.

    Global Terror Networks: Framing the struggle against terrorism as a war similar to World War II or the Cold War lends legitimacy and respect to an enemy that deserves neither; the result is to strengthen, not degrade, our adversary. Labeling terrorists as Islamic warriors has a similar effect. Terror
    networks represent a global insurgency with a criminal core; our response must take the form of a global counterinsurgency that utilizes a range of tools, particularly law enforcement, intelligence, and surgical military tools, such as special forces. Our priorities must be to prevent the formation of a nexus between terror networks and nuclear weapons, to destroy the hard core of terrorists, and to peel away terrorist supporters and sympathizers. The ability of terror networks to dictate the agenda of the world’s
    leading powers is a crucial source of their strength; the United States must not dance to this tune. In the longer run, building a world of liberty under law will make it harder for specific grievances and fanatical ideologies to take root and grow into global violence.

    The Proliferation and Transfer of Nuclear Weapons: The world is on the cusp of a new era of nuclear danger. Life in a nuclear crowd promises to be unstable and fraught with peril, from the risk of the collapse of a nuclear state to the potential failure of deterrence in a sea of uncertainty. These problems are not separate but part of a general breakdown of the global non-proliferation regime. Thus, we must reform and revive the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by revising Article IV to allow non-nuclear weapons states nuclear energy but not nuclear capacity and by taking concrete steps to live up to our commitment under Article VI to reduce our dependence on nuclear weapons. We should also use aggressive counter-proliferation measures, including locking down all insecure nuclear weapons and materials, building on the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict the trade in nuclear materials, and developing plans to intervene effectively if a nuclear-weapons state like Pakistan or North Korea collapses.

    The Rise of China and Order in East Asia: The rise of China is one of the seminal events of the early 21st century. America’s goal should not be to block or contain China, but rather to help it achieve its legitimate ambitions within the current international order and to become a responsible stakeholder
    in Asian and international politics. In Asia more broadly, America should aim to build a trans-Pacific, rather than pan-Asian, regional order – that is, one in which the United States plays a full part. The U.S.-Japan alliance should remain the bedrock of American strategy in East Asia, but the United States
    should also seek the creation of an East Asian security institution that brings together the major powers – China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and America – for ongoing discussions about regional issues.

    At the same time, we should continue to strengthen ties with Asia’s other emerging power, India, and should formulate policies throughout the region based on the principle that sustained economic growth in Asian countries other than China is the key to managing China’s rise.

    A Global Pandemic: Highly infectious diseases represent a national security threat of the first order – even though they are not guided by a human hand. Health experts currently warn of the apocalyptic danger of an avian influenza pandemic, which has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people.
    Indeed, AIDS already poses a grave security threat. To combat the threat of a another global pandemic, we must invest more in our public health system, provide adequate resources and training to our first responders, build the capacity of foreign governments that are least equipped to deal with disease
    outbreaks, and create an incentive structure in at-risk countries to ensure that they take necessary public health measures in a timely fashion.

    Energy: Massive U.S. consumption of oil threatens American security by transferring an enormous amount of wealth from Americans to autocratic regimes and by contributing to climate change and degradation of the environment. The only solution to these problems is to decrease our dependence on oil and provide incentives for investments in energy alternatives. Toward this end the United States should adopt a national gasoline tax that would start at fifty cents per gallon and increase by twenty
    cents per year for each of the next ten years. This measure should be accompanied by stricter automobile fuel efficiency standards. The United States should also lead international efforts to deal with climate
    change, seeking a third way between the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for emission reductions and opposition to any binding constraints.

    Building a Protective Infrastructure: The United States must build a stronger protective infrastructure – throughout our society, our government, and the wider world – that helps prevent threats and limits the damage once they materialize. In our society, we must strengthen our public health system, repair a broken communications system, and reform public education so that students attain the skill sets required to achieve our national security objectives. In our government, we need to create “joined-up government;” de-politicize threat assessment; integrate relevant but neglected portfolios, such as economics and health, into the national security policy-making process; and reach out to the private sector. In the wider world, we must work through networks of security officials to contain immediate threats before they reach our shores and should consider defining our border
    protections beyond our actual physical borders.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 04 Jun 11,, 19:09
  2. Is Pakistan an ally of the United States and the war on terrorism?
    By Hari_Om in forum International Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 Jun 07,, 10:12
  3. Al Qaeda Declines in Northern Iraq, Military Officer Says
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17 Sep 05,, 00:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts