Thursday, April 07, 2005

Foreign Policy Schizophrenia

Peggy’s post and Julian’s comment to her post set out some good arguments as to why John Bolton is or is not the right person to send to the UN. (Democracy Arsenal, by the way, has the top ten reasons why John Bolton should not be confirmed. Also note this post.) Regardless, I think there is little doubt that Bolton will be easily confirmed. That being said, I do wonder whether his confirmation, particularly in light of the rest of the second term foreign policy team, will continue the foreign policy schizophrenia that has dogged the Bush Presidency.

I know, many people would say that the Bush foreign policy has been quite coherent: pursuit of terrorists, pursuit of rogue states, skepticism (or outright hostility) towards international organizations and multilateralism, etc. But I think this misses some of the most important divergences within the Bush team as well as policy flips in recent years. The contentious issues have not always been what goals to pursue, but how to pursue them. (Though defining foreign pilicy goals has been contentious as well.)

At times there seems to be a real tug-of-war between moderate views (treat with comity ICJ judgments on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; let’s get the Law of the Sea Treaty ratified) and knee-jerk anti-internationalism (get out of the Consular Relations Optional Protocol! Beware the Law of the Sea Treaty!). This is also borne out in the mix of senior advisors (most obviously the clashes between Powell and Rumsfeld in the last term but now in the mix of foreign policy moderates on one hand, and folks like John Bolton and Douglas Feith, on the other).

Much has been made of President Bush liking to have a wide variety of views among his advisors and then choosing what he thinks is best; I’m all for such a leadership technique. The problem is that recent foreign policy hasn’t had this type of feel: rather its more like a lot of bureaucratic in-fighting with one faction winning out one day, another the next. The result is policy schizophrenia: write a presidential memo supporting the application of ICJ opinions one week, take away its jurisdiction on consular relations issues the next. Say the Law of the Sea Treaty is important, then sit and let it languish. Say the Geneva Conventions don’t apply in the War on Terror, then say we’ll apply most of them anyway, then repudiate your counsel’s legal memo on the issue.

In such an environment, who you have as your public face is very important because, quite frankly, allies need to be reassured that we aren’t about to do some crazy about face. I doubt John Bolton is that guy. I did not find the National Review Online piece that Julian linked to reassuring in the least; it made Bolton sound like someone who would support the UN only as long as the UN did exactly what the U.S. told it to do. That’s not going to win friends and influence allies and it's not going to lead to productive UN reform. Sure, some have said it took Nixon to go to China and so it will take John Bolton to go to the UN. The difference, though, is that Nixon actually gave a damn about relations with China.


Anonymous David said...

Yeah, Nixon cared so much about China that he decided to withdraw support from Tibet as part of the price for better relations. Im not sure that betraying former dependant allies fighting oppression is such a great foreign policy move, but then, why should a small thing like basic human rights stand in the way of commerce?

One thing that does not make sense to me is why some internationalists think that they United States should support the U.N. or the ICJ if these organizations are not cooperating with the United States. That just does not make sense. The U.N. has shown how dysfunctional it is in countless situations and it has no democratic legitimacy or accountability. Surely, the only reasonable reason to support this horribly inefficient mechanism which diverts funds better spent on, say, the Peace Corps or USAID, is that it is somehow helpful in advancing U.S. goals, humanitarian or otherwise.

Of course, the U.N. and other countries that would like to check the United States through the U.N. (or other international institutions) would prefer to exercise greater control over United States policy through the U.N. My question is simple. Why should we let them? If we support the U.N. at all, shouldn't that support be limited to instances when it advances United States policy? Why should the United States subsidize the undermining of its own foreign policy? All for an organization that has difficulty calling genocide in Darfur what it is? All for an organization which is in reality a source of privilege for many of it's employees, who wastefully consume scarce resources on five star hotels rather than putting those resources efficiently to use where most needed?

Sometimes I wonder if internationalists are more interested in advancing their own unrealistic idealism rather than actually improving the conditions of the world. Just as every problem cannot be solved with a hammer, not every problem can be solved either through the U.N. or other forms of international cooperation.

It is interesting to me that Chris seems to oppose Mr. Bolton's very nuanced point of view with respect to the role of the United Nations. Certainly, those who want to control United States policy through the U.N. will oppose such a nuanced strategy. So what. Generally, you would expect such nations to support anything which increases their own power compared to the United States. It seems irrational for the the United States to cooperate with them in limiting its own power. International organizations and international law may have a limited role to play, but they are not the end all that their idealistic supporters imagine. Except for the limited circumstances when our interests are aligned, the United States should not cooperate with such organizations. While the principle of reciprocity is important, it should be limited to concrete instances, not vague hopes that current sacrifice will be remembered in the future. I think this is especially critical, in light of the capacity for good in the world for which the United States is capable.

4/07/2005 6:29 PM  
Blogger Vicoprofen said...

I think this topic is very different and should be more pages like this,Your
comment says a lot of truth, it's very actually, and I'd like to invited you
to visit my page:10/325-
Vicoprofen - Lortab- Tylenol
- Ativan
All Major Medications are available right here at:

10/25/2006 12:16 PM  
Blogger john said...

I have the pleasure to visiting your site. Its informative and helpful, you may want to read about obesity and overweight health problems, losing weight, calories and "How You Can Lower Your Health Risks" at weightloss site.

10/14/2007 12:12 PM  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 08.04
oakley sunglasses, nike air max, michael kors outlet, prada outlet, tiffany jewelry, louboutin shoes, nike outlet, michael kors outlet online, kate spade outlet, tiffany jewelry, burberry factory outlet, oakley sunglasses, coach outlet, michael kors outlet online, michael kors handbags, longchamp outlet, chanel handbags, michael kors, nike air max, kate spade, coach purses, nike free, replica watches, cheap jordans, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, louboutin uk, gucci handbags, burberry outlet, michael kors outlet store, true religion outlet, ralph lauren polo, ray ban sunglasses, coach outlet, coach outlet store online, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, christian louboutin, christian louboutin, ralph lauren outlet, tory burch outlet, longchamp bags

8/03/2015 9:43 PM  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

nike air force, jordan pas cher, vans pas cher, abercrombie and fitch UK, vanessa bruno pas cher, nike blazer pas cher, nike air max, true religion outlet, polo lacoste pas cher, michael kors uk, nike air max pas cher, lunette ray ban pas cher, north face pas cher, louboutin pas cher, longchamp soldes, michael kors, hermes pas cher, converse, nike air max uk, nike air max uk, nike free, polo ralph lauren uk, burberry pas cher, longchamp pas cher, nike free pas cher, nike roshe run pas cher, north face uk, mulberry uk, lululemon outlet, hollister uk, michael kors outlet online, true religion outlet, timberland pas cher, nike tn pas cher, ray ban uk, lunette oakley pas cher, hogan sito ufficiale, new balance, sac guess pas cher, true religion jeans, abercrombie and fitch, ralph lauren pas cher

8/03/2015 9:44 PM  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

beats by dre, babyliss pro, nike roshe run, hollister clothing, abercrombie, mcm handbags, p90x workout, nike trainers uk, wedding dresses, softball bats, timberland boots, insanity workout, nike air huarache, instyler ionic styler, herve leger, lululemon outlet, north face outlet, asics running shoes, new balance shoes, valentino shoes, mac cosmetics, chi flat iron, hermes handbags, iphone 6 cases, nfl jerseys, nike air max, soccer jerseys, soccer shoes, celine handbags, nike roshe uk, oakley, reebok outlet, salvatore ferragamo, north face outlet, giuseppe zanotti, abercrombie and fitch, ghd hair, mont blanc, vans outlet, bottega veneta, jimmy choo outlet, longchamp uk

8/03/2015 9:46 PM  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

coach outlet, pandora jewelry, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, hollister, pandora uk, converse shoes outlet, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, pandora charms, vans scarpe, ray ban, toms shoes, ugg pas cher, gucci, bottes ugg pas cher, uggs on sale, converse, replica watches, swarovski jewelry, thomas sabo uk, uggs on sale, wedding dresses uk, uggs outlet, supra shoes, marc jacobs, uggs on sale, juicy couture outlet, links of london uk, louboutin, ugg uk, juicy couture outlet, polo ralph lauren, hollister, montre pas cher, karen millen uk, lancel, swarovski uk, nike air max, uggs outlet
ninest123 08.04

8/03/2015 9:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home