Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sat

17

Jan

2009

In praise of pragmatic foreign policy - US presidents often swing between realism and idealism. Obama should reject both.
Saturday, 17 January 2009 08:52
by Dennis Jett

President-elect Obama will soon take charge of a government that is materially and morally depleted. One thing he will not be short of, however, is advice on how to run the world. Among those most willing to offer him guidance on foreign policy will be the proponents of realism and idealism. He would do well to ignore both and instead seek an approach that reflects another "ism" — pragmatism.

When not offering advice, the realists and idealists are usually found debating each other. The realists — exemplified by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — say it is anarchy out there so every country must put its own interests first. They see the accumulation of power as essential to ensuring a country's survival, even if that negatively affects other countries.

The idealists — exemplified by President Woodrow Wilson — believe, a bit like Rodney King, that all nations ought to be able to just get along. They say countries should cooperate because all will be better off and that, in today's ever more globalized world, no country can go it alone.

To be sure, the realist/idealist debate is not the only one in international affairs. The experts place themselves in many camps as they do battle over a world with which some of them have had little contact. But they are the two colors journalists and pundits often use when painting a picture of foreign policy.

George W. Bush was described as coming to power as a hard-nosed realist who scorned enterprises such as nation building. Now a common story line has him leaving office as an idealist who believes there is nothing a good dose of democracy — spoon-fed by massive US intervention, if need be — won't cure. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was said to have arrived in Washington as an idealist, only to leave as a realist. Having to confront the limits to which other countries are willing and able to cooperate can make a leader feel mugged by reality.

Can a president's worldview really change so radically? Or is it just a change in tactics and the rhetoric used to disguise them? Regardless, Obama should avoid the grand theories and base his policies on pragmatism. Pragmatism does not rigidly adhere to any ideology, but instead simply asks: Will this work? That does not imply ignoring our principles, but it does require an appreciation for the art of the possible. Pragmatism, like bipartisanship, is promised far more often than it is delivered. Hillary Clinton asserted in her confirmation hearings this week that the new administration will have a pragmatic foreign policy. That won't be easy, as it is more likely to produce results in the long run than sound bites for the next news cycle. And her effectiveness abroad may be limited by the pressure she'll face to respond to interest groups at home. It will also lead to criticism from realists and idealists. Consider missile defense and NATO expansion. Missile defense is popular with realists because it fits their philosophy and because they are often found in think tanks supported by defense contractors. It is a system that does not work, however, to combat a threat that doesn't exist. $10 billion a year is being spent to deploy it in the US, and the Bush team has pushed strongly for sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. That has irritated both our European allies and our potential adversary, Russia.


The administration has also pressed for NATO membership for new democracies such as Georgia and Ukraine. But those two countries have demonstrated that it takes more than an election to make a real democracy. The institutions that are the foundation of democracy cannot be built overnight, and NATO membership is not going to create them instantaneously.

Georgia and Ukraine should therefore undergo a long trial period before they are considered for NATO membership — especially since the former treats its minorities poorly, harasses the opposition press, and started last summer's confrontation with Russia. Contrary to what Senator McCain proclaimed during the presidential campaign, we aren't all Georgians now. If we were, we would either be reduced to making hollow threats or risking a confrontation our military can't afford.

While Russia clearly overreacted in Georgia and is showing antidemocratic tendencies, the US needs Russia's cooperation on a host of issues far more than it needs more weak members of NATO. Some armchair generals would rather confront Russia than let it have its own sphere of influence, but there is little real choice.

The main reason these policies are being pushed is that they are part of Mr. Bush's attempt to set a legacy. Like Guant
More from this author:
The Iraq reality: No way forward (4470 Hits)
by Dennis C. Jett The year 2007 undoubtedly will bring its share of unexpected events. But here is one that should catch...
Get out - now (3813 Hits)
by Dennis Jett Despite all the rhetoric and resolutions emanating from Washington, two fundamental facts about the war in Iraq won't...
Expect no World War III for now (3314 Hits)
by Dennis Jett Everybody relax. We are not going to bomb Iran. The reason why we are not is obvious. But because it does not add ...
What YouTube doesn't show - YouTube spread news of Florida's Taser incident fast. But instant media doesn't always tell the whole story. (4763 Hits)
by Dennis Jett If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many are conveyed by a video tape? Whatever the number, it is not always enough...
Patriot Act (3072 Hits)
by Dennis Jett Why is it that those who proclaim their patriotism the loudest often demonstrate the least understanding of what this country...
Related Articles:
Privacy Policy (11395 Hits)
Privacy Policy for V.O.F. Expathos (Atlantic Free Press) V.O.F. EXPATHOS (ATLANTIC FREE PRESS) PRIVACY POLICY Welcome to V.O.F....
Swing Blades: Don Rumsfeld Bats Both Ways (12382 Hits)
In February 2003, I wrote a column for the Moscow Times detailing Don Rumsfeld's personal – and profitable – connection with North Korea's...
Civil War in Iraq: The Salvador Option and US/UK Policy (9565 Hits)
by Craig Murray, As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK...
Texas Versus Tel Aviv: US Policy in the Middle East (8809 Hits)
By James Petras The struggle within the US power structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian ...
Congress Should Immediately Terminate the 2001 AUMF (9092 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff Forget Nancy Pelosi's "100 Hours" agenda for the new Democratic Congress. The first thing Democrats need to...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top