U.S. in need of long-term foreign policy
By Dr. Milind Thakar | Guest Columnist
Both presidential candidates have expended much time in describing their foreign policy goals as well as criticizing their rival. A specific complaint from the McCain camp suggests that Barack Obama is unprepared to deal with foreign policy issues and exhibits naiveté and poor judgment on issues like Iran and Israel. Obama’s ideas about engaging hostile leaders in conversation, as well as enunciating a significant departure from policy, have aroused concerns about his preparedness.
However, these concerns hide a bigger problem, namely the lack of a coherent and long-term American foreign policy. Since 1990 when the Cold War ended, the decades-old policy of containment was declared a success and found no replacement. The excuse of a transitional phase in international relations has worn thin after 18 years, and clearly America needs a new policy.
Priorities differ markedly in 2008 from those in 1990 when Islamist fundamentalist fighters in Afghanistan were recent allies against a radical superpower. Today, the United States faces the following threats and/or concerns: a hostile perception worldwide due to mismanaged policies in Iraq and a unilateral foreign policy, an increasing threat from Islamic terrorism, the delicate task of managing a faltering international economy in which American predominance is waning and the difficulty of finding allies to help in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The downfall of the Soviet Union created a temporary vacuum that elevated and magnified American predominance. However, the rise of China and a less acquiescent Europe means a change in that state of affairs. Both Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International) and David Mason (professor at Butler University) have articulated recently that America’s lead over other states will decline.
These problems call for a new foreign policy, one that is calculated keeping in mind changing conditions (both domestic and international), and reflects America’s changed priorities since the end of the Cold War.
Given these imperatives, any new presidential candidate will have the following tasks: rejuvenating America’s image abroad, which has been tarnished after the unilateralism of Iraq, assuring core allies (including Western Europe and Japan) that the United States will consult with them before taking precipitous steps and negotiating with, rather than simply threatening, troublesome states and their leaders.
In explaining the last point, it is worth mentioning that the United States enjoys an almost cordial relationship with the People’s Republic of China – a serious challenger to American hegemony in the long run – but maintains its relationship with Cuba through a Cold War prism, something that makes no sense given the latter state’s limited capabilities and the hostile atmosphere that current American policy creates in the neighborhood.
It is also necessary to engage hostile states in conversation, including Iran – an odd exception when more serious threats to world peace, such as North Korea, enjoy the benefit of talks.
Finally, America needs a new policy to deal with the Israel-Palestine problem, since its acceptance of the Israeli occupation of Palestine remains a major sticking point within the Arab and Muslim world.
All these measures require a new and creative approach to foreign policy making. Older, more conventional approaches are mired in a Cold War mentality that is obsolete. For these reasons Obama’s proposed initiatives will probably bear greater fruit for American interests than a continuation of existing practices.
In the end, America’s imperative is to move on and recalibrate its foreign policy to suit a new era.
• Milind Thakar is an associate professor of international relations
