As a young naval
officer, we (my fellow officers and I) spent a lot of time sitting around the
Wardroom table talking about world affairs.
It was the height of the Cold War and we all had strong opinions about
the Defense Budget, weapon systems, the Soviet threat and the direction of our
military and civilian leadership.
These days, you don’t
have to be a military officer to have world affairs on your mind. Our world has become more complex since the
Cold War ended. The rise of ISIS, the Russian incursion into Ukraine and
Chinese expansionism in the S. China Sea have heightened our awareness.
So, what should we do
now? What should America’s foreign
policy be?
Ian Bremmer has some
ideas. A geopolitical consultant and a
Stanford Ph.D., Bremmer has just published a new book titled “Superpower: Three
Choices for America’s Role in the World”. In it, he asserts that America is not
in decline, as some would tell us.
Rather, our markets, employment levels and economic model are still the
envy of the world.
On the other hand, Bremmer
says, “our foreign policy is in decline.”
Americans are war weary following a decade of “ill-conceived wars” and
we now face an identity crisis. We are
clear that we don’t want to “play global policeman” or rebuild the Middle
East. But, we do we want?
Bremmer offers three distinct
ideas. The first is “Indispensable
America”. We can no longer afford to
ignore threats in faraway places. So, in
this scenario, America must lead. It is
based on the premise that if we don’t, no one else will. America must promote
its values – personal freedom, economic freedom and equal opportunity. In our
interconnected world, the U.S. should provide a positive alternative to alliances
with China, Russia and Iran.
“Moneyball America”
suggests that we focus our attention and resources on Asia with a view toward
establishing a firm alternative to Chinese influence in the “world’s most
dynamic region”. Spend no time, energy or
financial capital on fruitless efforts like the so-called peace process between
Israel and Palestine. Develop a more
pragmatic relationship with Iran, “a country that offers future opportunities
that others in the region cannot”.
The payoff to playing
Moneyball is more robust economic growth by pursuing strategic alliances and
trading relationships across the Pacific.
Bremmer’s last alternative
may appeal to many voters who are sick and tired of our involvement on the
other side of the world. “Independent
America” would provide a policy framework that would let the Middle East,
Europe, Russia, China and China’s neighbors figure things out for
themselves. Terrorism is more a threat
to them than to us. We should invest our
capital in infrastructure and our energy in taking advantage of our geographic
position and our thriving economy.
 |
| Samuel Huntington |
Samuel Huntington was
the director of Harvard’s Center for International Affairs and served on the
National Security Council during the Carter administration. In 1993, he
published a seminal white paper, “The Clash of Civilizations”, predicting how
the post-Cold War battle lines would be drawn. According to Huntington, friction
would develop along “the cultural faults lines separating … civilizations from
one another”. He identifies “Western,
Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic, Latin American and possibly
African” as distinct civilizations and suggests that nation states would no longer be the principal actors in global affairs.
Certainly, we have seen
Huntington’s predictions borne out in the disintegration of the former
Yugoslavia, the continuing India/Pakistan conflict, Islamic terrorist attacks
on Western targets and the crisis in the Ukraine. However, even he failed to predict that most wars would be fought within
civilizations. Sunni vs. Shia, civil war
in the Sudan and the ongoing Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria and Kenya come to
mind.
Predicting the future is
difficult if not impossible. It’s difficult
to know what new direction America should set for itself.
World affairs and our
role in it are likely to be a major issue in next year’s selection of a
president. Candidates will have to
outline policy choices. However, few
presidents have the opportunity to govern according to their campaign
promises. Bush didn’t anticipate 9/11 and
Obama didn’t expect the financial crisis to be the preeminent issue of his
first term.
In a prior
post (Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, Machiavelli… Where are they now?), I wrote “it was not the policies
on which Bush and Obama campaigned that mattered. It was their character
and their ability to make a decision in moments of crisis and stick with them…. character is more important than policies.”
WHO
WILL LEAD?
