Even if you listen to all the presidential debates, you will learn precious little about the kind of foreign policy the next president plans to follow. “Change” is on all lips. The fact that the foreign policies the Bush Administration followed are wrong-headed is commonly understood, even by many Republicans. However, what is going to replace these policies is barely discussed. We hear plenty about Iraq, some about Iran, a bit about restoring our reputation overseas and the merit of talking to our adversaries, but little about what we are gong to tell them.
Here are the key elements of a new approach. We cannot retreat from the world and we cannot remedy all its ills, let alone act as a global cop. Hence we must set priorities. On the must do list, first priority is the prevention a nuclear attack on us and on anybody else. The massive killings that such an attack would cause would trigger retaliatory attacks, which would inflict still more massive casualties, and would cause a major curtailing of rights in the name of preventing still future attacks. This means, for instance, that in dealing with Russia, the next president must put the highest priority on an acceleration of the programs that seek to better safeguard small nuclear arms and the fissile material from which nuclear bombs can be made. Ditto in dealing with Pakistan. And there must be no uranium for India until it at least joins the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Second, we must limit our interventions in the internal affairs of other nations to truly vital matters – vital meaning when life and death are directly at issue. Hence we should, working with other nations, stop genocides. We should have been in Rwanda. We should be in Dafur. We need well be in Kosovo. The Australians did good when they marched into East Timor, and the Brits into Sierra Leone. Also, we are entitled to stop an attack on us, but only when there is a clear and imminent danger—a right already recognized by international law.
Third, we should recognize that the majority of the people in the world, including— data show –most Muslims, abhor violence. They reject terrorist attacks, invasions of other countries, and genocides. They make for potential Partners in Peace –whether or not they also are ready to introduce Western-style democratic regimes and to respect the full plethora of human rights.
This about as much as I can do within the limit of one posting. I am tempted to cite my book on the subject, but fear being charged with self-promotion. I hence refer you to what Jonathan Rauch has to say on the subject [here ] and to Samantha Power’s new book on Sergio Vieira de Mello, Chasing the Flame. In it, Vieira de Mello, a career U.N. official, is quoted as saying "Security is the first priority, and the second priority, and the third priority, and the fourth priority.”
Comments