Why aren't people noticing the new, [slightly] improved Bush foreign policy? First, the changes coming out of Washington have been very recent. Perhaps more important, they remain incremental and incomplete. This is probably because they are still contested within the administration. Almost all of those officials who embody the administration's crude and clumsy policies of the first term—led by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney—remain in office. They merely appear to be lying low, for now...
The result is that the new approach retains many elements of the old: hectoring rhetoric, constant conditions and stiff demands...
In Washington, it's still more important to look tough than be effective. [emphasis mine]
In other words, Bush has changed out of necessity, and is just waiting for an opportunity to go back to his old bullying ways. Bush is kept in check by his abject failures, not by any wisdom or balanced perspective of his own. In this, he is somewhat similar to the Japanese government, which only admits guilt for World War 2 because it absolutely has to. That's the reason why Korea and China never take Japan's halfhearted "apologies" seriously...and that's the reason why no one in the U.S., Europe, Latin America, or the Middle East seriously believes bush has changed his ways.
Bush hasn't changed his ways, and he won't. The era of blundering bullying decline that he ushered in - the era of "Speak loudly and carry a stick" - will not be over at least until January 20, 2009 (and, if McCain gets elected, not for at least four years after that!).
But, even though 90% went disastrously wrong, it's worth looking at Bush's foreign policy to see if anything went right. To me, Bush's approach seems very 19th-century - lots of flag-waving jingoism, solutions by military force, disdain for multinational institutions, accusing internal critics of treason, etc. Bush, far less competent than Bismarck, has made us into a bad Prussia imitation.
But, also in the 19th-century style, Bush seems to understand balance-of-power politics, and strategic alliances. While Islamic terrorism may be the most immediate threat to America's security, the rise of an anti-U.S. alliance - China + Russia - is the biggest long-term threat to American hegemony. This is a threat that Bush understands. And in true 19th-century fashion, he has made moves to counter this nascent bloc by building up our own.
First came the India nuclear deal. Now we have the alliance between Japan and Australia, which partially replaces the old "hub-and-spoke" model of Asian alliances with the U.S. There are rumors that India, which has recently strengthened its "strategic partnership" with Japan, might also join that group. And beyond these headline-grabbers, the U.S. has been quietly cultivating other Asian allies, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore.
This web of alliances - obviously aimed at balancing China and Russia - may strike many people as dangerous and overly confrontational (this being Bush and all). After all, 19th-century balance-of-power politics eventually led to two apocalyptic wars that wrecked nearly all of civilization. But I would point out that, during the Cold War, power-balancing was what probably saved the world from even worse annihilation. So it's not always a losing strategy. And, no matter how bloodthirsty Bush and his cronies may be, any big Asian war would still be a long way over the horizon. the web of alliances that Bush has started building will be a considerable asset in the hands of a wiser, more diplomatic (and probably Democratic) administration down the road.
Also, the key feature of the nascent new Asian alliance system is that it discards the old "hub-and-spoke" model, where Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan all had alliances with the United States but not with each other. This meant that if there was any trouble in East Asia, it was always the U.S. that had to speed to the rescue (as in Korea in 1994 or Taiwan in 1996). Now, hopefully, the Asian powers can rely more on each other for security and less on us - a NATO-like arrangement that will hopefully lead them closer to EU-style integration somewhere down the road.
In any case, Bush's East Asian policies have left much to be desired (North Korea!). But overall they've focused on alliance-building, free trade, and conflict diffusion - being effective without looking tough - nearly exactly the opposite of his policies in the Middle East. Today it's the Middle East that's exploding, but in 30 or 50 years it might be Asia. If that day ever comes, future administrations might be grateful for Bush's 19th-century-style politicking.
Unless, as I fear may happen, America has already declined into global irrelevance as a result of Bush's disastrous blunders elsewhere in the world. This is why our best strategy as a nation is, absolutely and unambiguously, to replace Bush with a Democrat, ASAP.
PS - Shortly after writing this post, I discovered this much longer and better-researched article in Foreign Affairs that also praises Bush for his subtle touch in Asia, but focuses more on the development of multinational institutions.
Bonus Reading Guide
1. Great article by Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose name I have no hope of ever pronouncing, on why the term "War on Terror" is, and should be, on the way out.
2. A good article by Steve Clemons discussing the Nazification of Japan's leadership. Apparently the Japanese people are worried too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment