There are many recurring debates in US foreign policy — for example, isolationism versus internationalism, and unilateralism versus multilateralism. But no debate is more persistent than that between those who believe that US foreign policy’s principal purpose should be to influence the external behavior of other states and those who hold that it should be to shape their internal nature.
This debate between “realists” and “idealists” is intense and long-standing. During the Cold War, there were those who argued that the US should try to “roll back” the Soviet Union, bring down the communist system and replace it with democratic capitalism. Others deemed this to be too dangerous in an era defined by nuclear weapons, and the US opted instead for a policy of containment, working to limit the reach of Soviet power and influence.
As it turned out, after 40 years of containment, the Soviet Union and its empire unraveled, though this outcome was a byproduct of US policy, not its principal purpose.
Former US president George W. Bush was the most recent “idealist” proponent of making democracy promotion the main priority for US foreign policy. Bush embraced the so-called “democratic peace” theory, which holds that democracies not only treat their own citizens better, but also act better toward their neighbors and others.
It was, of course, his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who was a strong representative of the alternative, “realist” approach to US foreign policy.
Much of this debate can be viewed through the lens of US involvement with Iraq. George W. Bush went to war with Iraq in 2003 to change the government. He expected regime change in Baghdad to lead to a democratic Iraq, a development that would in turn transform the region when people elsewhere in the Arab world saw this example and forced their own governments to follow suit.
By contrast, in the earlier Iraq War, the first president Bush, after amassing an unprecedented international coalition that succeeded in liberating Kuwait, did not press ahead to Baghdad to oust then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and his government, despite the urging of many that he do just that.
Nor did he intervene on behalf of the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings that erupted just after the war ended early in 1991. To him, intervention would have placed US soldiers in the midst of a complex domestic struggle, one that would have cost enormous resources to sort out, if it could be sorted out at all.
President Barack Obama appears to agree with this realist approach. The new US policy toward Afghanistan makes no mention of trying to transform that country into a democracy. On the contrary, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated before Congress in January, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose.”
For his part, Obama said in March that “We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
This shift is also evident in US policy toward China. Speaking during her trip to Asia in February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear that human rights issues would be a secondary concern in US-China relations.
Similarly, the joint statement issued by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev after their April 1 meeting in London, while mentioning that US-Russia relations would be “guided by the rule of law, respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights and tolerance for different views,” placed far greater emphasis on reducing nuclear arms, addressing Iran’s nuclear program and stabilizing Afghanistan. US support for Russia’s admission to the WTO was unconditional.
This change in US foreign policy is both desirable and necessary. Mature democracies do tend to act more responsibly, but immature democracies can easily succumb to populism and nationalism.
It is both difficult and time-consuming to build mature democracies. While encouraging the rule of law and the growth of civil society, the US still needs to work with other governments, democratic or otherwise. Pressing problems, such as the economic crisis, nuclear proliferation and climate change, will not wait.
The good news is that history shows that it is possible to make peace with and work with non-democracies. Israel, for example, has had peaceful relations with non-democratic Egypt and Jordan for more than three decades. The US and the Soviet Union cooperated in limited ways (for example, in controlling nuclear arms) despite fundamental differences.
Today, the US and authoritarian China have mutually beneficial trade and financial ties, and have shown on occasion that they can work together on strategic issues, for example in shaping North Korea’s behavior.
This is not to say that promoting democracy will have no role in US foreign policy. It will, and it should. But democracy promotion is too uncertain a proposition, and the world too dangerous a place, for it to occupy center stage in what the US does. Obama’s foreign policy will thus resemble that of George Bush — the father, that is, not the son.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s