|
|
|
Major International Challenges the United States Will Face in 2005
By William C. Harrop*
The author, a retired senior American diplomat, presents his assessment of some of the important policy questions policy makers in Washington will face over the next few years. Amb. Harrop takes issue with a number of basic premises and decisions of recent years and calls for basic changes in outlook. –Ed.
American foreign policy during President George W. Bush's first term was based upon a pattern of interlocking premises:
The United States wields disproportionately great economic and military power; so it can act effectively in its own interest and in its perception of the world's interest without needing to accommodate the views of other nations, including allies.
The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 overturned historical rules of international behavior.
Unlike other nations, the United States as the sole global power should not be constrained by international agreements or conventions which limit its prerogatives.
In view of the dominance of the armed forces of the United States, military action is more effective and more certain than diplomacy.
Democracies do not launch wars (although the administration's doctrine of preventive action and the example of Iraq raise questions about this homily); the United States should press for democratization, especially in the Middle East, the cradle of Islamic terrorism.
All peoples desire liberty and democracy; the benign military occupation of a country formerly oppressed by dictatorship will lead to installation of a popular democratic government.
As the devout government of a Christian nation, the Bush administration enjoys special moral authority.
These precepts have not served America well. As his second term begins, President Bush finds himself mired in a difficult war in Iraq, with no satisfactory conclusion in sight, and with military capability attenuated. The American public more and more concludes that the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the struggle against Al Qaeda, a mistake with the costs out-weighing the benefits. In the larger world, the United States is disrespected, feared, and mistrusted as never before in its history; America has jeopardized its ability to lead.
Success in confronting the formidable challenges outlined below will hinge upon the administration learning from past experience, moving away from the precepts that guided the first four years toward a more pragmatic view of the world and America's role. Unfortunately, the president's apparently great personal confidence, his sense of righteousness, and his reluctance to acknowledge error do not permit optimism for the future.
Iraq
President Bush must find a way to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, at the least cost in American lives, in American prestige, and American resources. Most in the Bush administration do not yet comprehend this. They continue to believe that American military occupation, with determination and perseverance, will lead to self-sustaining democracy.
The invasion of Iraq was a serious misjudgment. There were no weapons of mass destruction; there were no operative links to Al Qaeda or to September 11. Iraq was effectively contained and presented no threat to American security, the international community was opposed. The implications of military occupation were not understood or even addressed by the administration, the reaction of the Muslim World was not considered. The dream of imposing democracy upon Iraq by force of arms, and that this event would turn the Arab Middle East toward democracy, was just that—a neoconservative dream divorced from the lessons of history.
Iran
Iran is set upon a course to obtain nuclear weapons, in large part because of its perception of confrontation with the United States and Israel, which have such weapons, and its border with Pakistan, another nuclear power. The United States has no realistic military option; it must turn to diplomacy. Rather than belittling the diplomatic initiative of Britain, France, and Germany, the Bush administration will have to participate in it and propose realistic incentives for Iran as well as threats. There may in the end be no way to head off Iran's development of nuclear weapons, but to open communication and to encourage Iran's entry into more normal relations with the modern world will be the prudent course either way, and the means most likely to stimulate internal liberalization.
North Korea
The six-power talks now under way, if spasmodically, provide a useful diplomatic platform, keeping China engaged and to the fore, and maintaining communication. But here also the administration must be more forthcoming and more creative in responding to Korea's obsessive concern with security. Again, there is no practical military option and diplomacy is the tool at hand.
Israel and Palestine
Circumstances are propitious: Arafat is gone, about to be replaced by an experienced moderate opposed to the Intifada; Sharon has understood the demographic reality hanging over Israel and is determined to withdraw from Gaza in 2005. President Bush, having won a clear victory at the polls, is in a position to engage. Any hope of exploiting this moment of opportunity depends directly upon his doing so. The administration, and the president personally, should work with Europeans, the UN, and neighboring Arab countries to press Israel and the Palestinians to implement the Roadmap; neither has done so to date. The president must not shrink from applying pressure upon the Israelis in their own interest.
If efforts to revive the Roadmap fail, President Bush should lead other interested governments in presenting the elements of a final settlement (which are well known) to the two parties, and should remain involved and in ready contact until they reach agreement.
Serious American engagement to resolve the Arab/Israel confrontation is essential to restoring American credibility in the Muslim world.
Western Europe
A difficult division and some ill feeling between the United States and major European allies arose over the invasion of Iraq, but has other causes in European resentment of perceived American arrogance and in differences in values and world vision. President Bush evidently realizes the importance of bridging this division and has scheduled an early trip to consult with allies in Europe. But the President must understand that consultation means listening as well as explaining, and that parties to a partnership must accept the need for compromise. Consultation must be real and partners must share in policy decisions.
Economic Development
The glaring disparity between rich and poor peoples causes persistent instability. Much of the world remains untouched by the economic stimulus of globalization, and the economic backwardness of most Muslim societies breeds terrorists. The United States should take the lead in addressing this world problem, and should devote a far higher percentage of its wealth to this cause. The Millennium Account, although not adequately funded, is a good start. So is the drive for liberalization in trade of agricultural commodities. And American leadership in January 2005 in addressing the catastrophic tsunami in the Indian Ocean has set a promising example of what the United States can do.
Conclusion
President Bush's overwhelming international agenda includes many more issues than can be addressed in this brief comment. These include Putin's Russia, non-proliferation, the autocratic regimes of the Middle East, the phenomenon of China, global warming, the delicate balance of Pakistan, nation building in Afghanistan, the implications of the American budget deficit and the gradual collapse of the dollar, Darfur, Congo, Cuba, and yet more.
But this brief summary should show that the Bush administration must make basic adjustments in the premises under which it operated in the first term. If it proves unable to learn from experience, we and the world face a very difficult four years.
January 8, 2005
Endnotes
Note *: William C. Harrop retired from the U. S. Foreign Service in 1994 after a distinguished forty-year career. He held ambassadorships to Guinea, Kenya and the Seychelles, Zaire, and Israel and was deputy assistant secretary of state. Ambassador Harrop is a member of the board of directors of American Diplomacy Publishers. Back