Empereur.com

                       American Foreign Policy  (Saddam is No More!)

The United States and its'  21^st century diplomacy

The 21^st century American diplomacy shall be guided according to the ideals of founders, American internationalism and international law. America shall not, as a democracy, and consistence with its anti-colonial freedom loving ideology, protects its interests based on military intimidation. The reason is simple, any military engagement, with or without the UN approval will not only be damaging for American’s reputation, but also devastating for the American economy. The problem for America is that at the apogee of its power, it has yet to invent a foreign policy concept relevant to its world leadership position. For instance, the victorious invasion of Iraq, and refusal to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue only make the US a true bully, or in Mao’s word, a “paper Tiger.” This is problematic not just for America, but equally for the rest of the world. For people around the world are looking at America for guidance, and moreover, the American preeminence, both in Economics and military aspect, is a fact of life that the rest of the world has to deal with for the foreseeable future. As for the United States government, today, how to maintain its newly created Pax Americana is the highest topic: through persuasion diplomacy or by means of fear?

One interesting school of thought, based on a feeling of Manifested Destiny is gaining influence on Washington practitioners. This school of thought has a liberal left side, which argues that America has created a lot of problems around the world; its profit seeking oriented economic system and realist ideology being the main causes. However, ultimately, it recognizes that only the US has the willingness and capacity to deal with those problems. This school of thought believes that the US wherewithal, including its technology, knowledge, democratic values along with the US aid can change the world. And therefore, America should be more engaged internationally and intervene where sufferings are.

Some of these believers even argue that America should use force to remove dictators around the globe, so that the world will be a better and safer place to live. This belief could not be better interpreted by the concept of newly emerged ‘Neo Conservatives,’ a group composed of former American left liberal now prominent republicans. The Neo Conservatives believe for instance, that the USSR’s collapse came about more or less automatically as the result of a new American assertiveness expressed in the change in rhetoric (Evil Empire), and the solution to international issues, including US world position, can be resolve by American Hegemony.

This is a controversial policy, at least in theory. At the macro level, debates about American foreign policy are often based on abstract ideological differences, idealism vs. realism, or should the US economic interests guide American foreign policy making. The real challenge for Washington practitioners come when it is needed to combine all arguments into one policy that truly represents American interests, American traditional values, and its internationalism.

The reason of the current debate - what the 21^st century American diplomacy should be, is a consequence of ideological vacuum caused by the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. For more than a decade, scholars, journalists, diplomats and policy makers wondered about American foreign policy, because it is evident that the wheel of history won’t stop rotating, the collapse of Communism lead to the end of Liberalism, vacuuming ideology behind the US legitimacy, causing its foreign policy senseless and contradictory and ultimately, engendering American paramount position to decline.

Now, finally, the US has a policy that reflects the president’s deed, a conviction though bold and arrogant, this is known as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ Yet, American diplomacy is still viewed controversial by the rest of the world. As we know, the US diplomacy success depends on the willingness of the rest of the world to welcome US power with open arms. At the current stage, population in Europe and around the world in general has expressed disagreement towards American foreign policy, and the Bush Doctrine in particular. Therefore, it is important for the American administration to react quickly about the overwhelming resentment. After all, it is influence, not power, that is ultimately most valuable for the successfulness of diplomacy.

To understand in which way the 21^st century US diplomacy can be successful, lesson from the past could be studied.

First of all, there is only one recipe to a successful foreign policy, credibility. One who has no credibility is a man without moral and honor, the same concept applies to foreign policy. President Wilson, Franklin and his wife, all well understood it, and this is why they had embraced international institutions. This approach represents the highest understanding about the art of promoting national interests based on realism; to promoted the common good and seek partners and foreign people that share the same interests and ideals. Alexander Hamilton argued to avoid a self interests oriented policy, but “a policy regulated by their own interest, as far as justice and good faith permit.” [1]

The only reason that could explain why the 20^th century was known as the American century is the idealism behind of American power. The paradigm shift in international diplomacy is sourced from the young mounting US as an industrial and maritime power. The increasing world dependency on US power enabled its idealism in terms of moral and ethics to be imposed on international affairs. For instance, it was America that endorsed with force that all people have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny. President Woodrow Wilson with his fourteen points introduced American idealism to the world. Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘four freedoms’: freedom of speech, of worship, from want, and from fear established post WWII American moral leadership and its international influence. When the President Eisenhower decided to against invasion of Suez Canal by France and Great Britain, because the UN and International Law could be the solution to any international dispute, America further justified its world leadership: anti – imperialist, the guardian of freedom as well as the international law.

However, the American diplomacy of today is totally different. Perhaps “With us or against us” was a righteous position for the president right after 9/11, it shall not be considered as the core ideology behind of the 21^st century American diplomacy, however. The phase certainly showed to the domestic and as well as international audiences about President Bush anger, sorrow and determination for revenge against international phenomenon. Yet Bush, a person with a poor culture understanding, neglected to realize a continuation of such stand won’t help his agenda in long run.

As a result, Bush failed to even persuade American closest allies beside of the Great Britain. To break its isolation and to gain support for the ongoing war against international terrorism, the Bush team made unmoral compromise with despotic regimes. Realism once again dominates US foreign policy, a stand that personified by Henry Kissinger. America will never learn its lesson - because of realist short term strategic thinking, people like Bin Laden and Hussein were created. Now America is again compromising on fundamental issues. Take the East as an instance, the Bush administration closed its eyes on Human Rights issue in China, classified a Uighur separatist group into its international terrorist list, closed its eyes on the execution of Tibetan separatists as well as Chinese regime’s cover up on the fast spreading SARS disease. In Central Asia, human right violation in countries such as Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and Byelorussia are forgotten subjects.  

No wonder countries such as China and Russia adore the Bush Doctrine. As Hirsh rightly phased, “all of which are now, in a happily Bismarckian way, on friendlier terms with Washington than with each other.”^[2] For the Bush Doctrine has helped to reenergized  partnership with major regional powers such as China and Russia, each of which faces its own internal problems caused by military and political repression.

The matter of fact is, the Bush and American administration in general, have a tradition of inconsistency of ‘promoting democracy.’ Today, the problem has become further deteriorated. Even in terms of terrorism, Washington made compromise; the United States government recently signed a cease-fire with the People’s Mujahedeen, an Iranian exile group with a long record of terrorism and collaboration with Saddam Hussein. According to the reported terms of capitulation, the Mujahedeen will stop fighting US forces and be allowed to store much of the artillery and the antiaircraft guns they received from the shattered Iraqi regime. [3]

America shall not repeat the path of previous fallen empires. The largest challenges for the administration now are: how to minimize the damage made on American world leadership position, and to shift its diplomacy toward a more multilateral and moral oriented one. For instance, in lieu of arguing for preventive 21^st century war against rough states, Washington should embrace and argue for morally justified humanitarian intervention – engaged by a group of states that intervene collectively through peaceful and military means to stop massive humanitarian disaster. The world will view it as rightful and morally justified coalition under the leadership of the US. Therefore, a sincere commitment to internationalism, American idealism, humanity and reestablishing American credibility must be view by the White House as the goal and a realistic long term oriented foreign diplomacy agenda for the 21^st century America.