| |
SPEAKING FREELY
A cascade of
catechisms
By M Iftikhar Malik
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click
here if you are interested in
contributing.
Not since the darkest days
of the Cold War has the world seemed such a dangerous
place. Events surrounding Iraq, North Korea and
al-Qaeda, and US reactions towards them, all threaten
the peace. But unlike the policies that clearly defined
US strategies in its Cold War with the Soviet Union,
containment and mutually assured destruction, US foreign
policy of today seems confused, conflicted and at times
self-defeating.
What do the Americans and the
rest of the world see? The Bush administration is poised
for war against Iraq to prevent it from using weapons of
mass destruction. But Iraq has admitted UN inspectors
who have yet to find any. No evidence has been presented
indicating Iraq has supplied any such arms to terrorists
or other nations. Fellow axis of evil member North
Korea, however, concedes that it is building nuclear
weapons, has thrown out international arms inspectors,
already has missiles which could hit Tokyo, Seoul or
perhaps the US, and sells Scuds for cash to support its
wretched economy. Yet the US administration seems more
willing to talk to North Korea, and is using allies to
help negotiate a peaceful accord with that country.
If little consistency in foreign policy can be
perceived, it's because there isn't any. As a candidate,
George W Bush embraced neo-isolationism, unilateralism
and preemption in his first year in office;
multilateralism in his second year; and Wilsonian
internationalism (or Roosevelt-style imperialism, take
your pick) as he enters his third.
The only
positive aspect of this inconsistency is that the
reality of Bush foreign policy lags behind its rhetoric
- and how it is perceived. The whole Bush team appears
to be on a learning curve, and introduces new policies
as they come up against global realities. They have
moved away from hard ideological positions toward a more
pragmatic approach to world problems. The crises around
Iraq and North Korea, each in it own way, have forced
the Bush administration to shape a more traditional
multilateral, diplomatic course of action.
The
frightening thing about Bush-style US foreign policy is
that it is undergoing evolution. We witness policy
reversals and inconsistencies, hoping for the best
outcomes, but also fearful of consequences of hastily
devised solutions or inadequate thought about
ramifications. Until the Bush team can clearly define
its foreign policy goals and objectives, uncertainty,
fear and anger may continue to surround its actions,
both at home and abroad.
The revision in Bush's
foreign policy fundamentals over three short years has
been startling. Bush ran for office as a
neo-isolationist, fearful of losing US sovereignty to
international organizations such as the UN, opposed to
military intervention in ethnic wars in Bosnia, against
nation-building in places such as Somalia, and
determined to build missile-defense shield to ward off
foreign threats at home.
In office, Bush adopted
unilateralism, abandoning key international treaties
such as the Kyoto global warning agreement and the ABM
deal, causing a wave of unpopularity, and it's only
getting worse. Pew Research Center surveys show rising
anti-Americanism even among traditional allies such as
Germany, Canada, Turkey and South Korea. Unfavorable
opinion of the US has never been lower in the Middle
East.
September 11 reinforced Bush
unilateralism. The US attacked al-Qaeda and overthrew
the Taliban in Afghanistan alone, with some help from
Britain, but largely without involving NATO or the UN.
The pinnacle of the unilateralist phase of this
foreign policy came in the summer of 2002, when it was
codified in The National Security Strategy of the United
States of America. This document emphasized
unilateralism, preemption and preventing any country or
combination of countries from being allowed to ever
match US military might. This was clearly aimed at
aspiring powers such as China. Talk about imperial
reach.
Yet within weeks of issuing this national
security doctrine, Bush foreign policy turned sharply
multilateral. The realities of regime change in Iraq
forced the shift. In fact, the new policy direction had
been already foreshadowed in the regime change in
Afghanistan. To cement that victory, the US had to rely
heavily on Russia, Pakistan, Turkey, Germany, Italy, the
UN and multitude of other regional players and
international organizations in safeguarding Kabul and
start rebuilding that country. The US may have fought
alone, but in the end, victory depended on many others.
That dependence was manifested in the
preparation for the looming war with Iraq. To gain
access to bases in the Middle East, Turkey and Europe to
invade Iraq, the US had to go through the UN Security
Council and play by multilateral rules of the game. In
the process, George W Bush challenged the UN to become
"relevant" again - and it did. It was an important
lesson.
North Korea is teaching another lesson
to Bush foreign policy experts. Preemption may be
possible in a militarily weak country such as Iraq, but
it is whole lot more difficult, if not indeed
impossible, in heavily armed states such as North Korea.
A provocation there could mean the destruction of Seoul
or even Tokyo. Even though North Korea may be a greater
threat to the US, and even though it lied for years
about its nuclear program, a unilateral preemptive
military solution is clearly not an option. Instead the
Bush team is grudgingly turning to South Korea and China
to defuse that volatile situation through diplomacy.
Allies count. Welcome to pragmatism.
Nevertheless, there still remains much public
confusion and consternation about Bush foreign policy
precisely because it is in transition. Rhetoric often
doesn't follow action, conflicting voices speak at the
same time, and policies are still sharply divergent from
one another. Unilateralism may be out, but prevention
remains in. Does anyone really think that the US can
prevent China from becoming a major military power?
The changes underway in the administration
foreign policy are none too soon. In fact, if a
multilateral approach is fully adopted and implemented,
it could prove to be the catalyst for positive changes
in the Middle East - from rebuilding shattered societies
like Iraq to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even the neo-isolationism has been set aside in favor of
internationalism that envisions remaking Iraq and the
rest of the region into modern democratic societies. An
arc of democracy across the top of the Middle East -
Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan - and leading the way
for the modernization of Islamic society is possible.
That would be an epic event on the scale of the end of
the Cold War.
But to achieve that, the US will
need a clear, consistent foreign policy that is aligned
with world opinion - a dose of realism if you will. A
first step would be to balance its rhetoric with its
increasing pragmatism.
M Iftikhar
Malik is president of Apex-MIM Group Inc, a
management consulting firm in California.
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click
here if you are interested in
contributing.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
