The current debate about the foreign policy of the next administration focuses on select hot spots (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan). Sometimes, Russia and Chain are mentioned. Very little attention is paid to what over arching principles are going to direct the new foreign policy and what basic strategy it is going to follow. Above all, no one is willing to come clean and openly admit that the United States –“the richest nation in the world”— can do much less than we wish, and hence must set priorities. Moreover, the United States may very well be unable to get very far down the list of what ought to be done, leaving much uncovered.
Americans are by nature a young, can do, positive thinking, optimistic lot. The typical discussion about a problem implicitly assumes that there is a solution if people of good will (and means) will put their minds to it. Actually, the opposite is true. The world, especially the international arena, is a tragic place, in which problems persist and interventions often do not help, but instead sadly exacerbate the problem. Above all, there are scores of issues that cry out to be addressed, and at best there are the resources for addressing only some of them. Priorities must be set, as painful as such a process is.
First priority should be accorded to the protection of life. Not just ours, but that of all human beings. Hence the powers that be, working with other nations, should interfere whenever there is a threat of a massive loss of life. They should have been in Rwanda, and should be in Sudan and the Congo. However the interventions in Panama and Haiti could hardly be justified by this criterion.
On the same ground, when a state is truly threatening another with weapons of mass destruction, it should be prevented from attacking, as international law has long recognized. The fact that the Bush Administration abused this principle will make it difficult to come up with complete evidence that an attack is imminent. However this should not be understood to mean that from now on nations have to give up the right to self-defense. Even Arab nations were mum when Israel attacked a facility in Syria in which North Korea is believed to have helped build a nuclear reactor. (As Seymour Hirsch spelled out in a recent issue of the New Yorker).
Sergio Vieira de Mello, a career U.N. official, put this position succinctly when he stated: "Security is the first priority, and the second priority, and the third priority, and the fourth priority.” Samantha Power, in her new book Chasing the Flame, stressed the need to back up soft power with hard power when all else fails. Jonathan Rauch writes “export security, not democracy” [here].
The good news is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject the use of violence, just like other people across the world. For example, polls conducted in 2005 and 2006 showed that only 13% of Moroccans, 17% of Turks and 10% of Indonesians supported suicide bombings. Moreover both Iran and North Korean indicated repeatedly that they are willing to put their nuclear programs on the negotiating table if the US and its allies will commit themselves not to attack these nations. Hence, to the extent the next administration will make the promotion of peace rather than regime change its first priority, major progress on this front can be hoped for. This in turn would free resources, political capital, and attention for whatever is next on the priority scale.
Others may disagree with the high ranking I grant protecting life, but may agree that there is a need to set priorities and engage in the discussion of what must be done first.
Comments