Copyright 2000 Journal Sentinel Inc.
Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel
June 11, 2000 Sunday ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: CROSSROADS; Pg. 02J
LENGTH: 815 words
HEADLINE:
Now would be a good time for foreign policy debate
BYLINE: MICHAEL RUBY of the Journal Sentinel staff
BODY:
It's hard to think of recent history as
quaint, but a glimpse back at the world a mere two decades ago makes you shake
your head in wonderment. Hostages in Iran, OPEC driving up oil prices, a
belligerent Soviet Union in Afghanistan, a dispirited U.S. military: The
correlation of forces, as the strategy wonks like to say, did not seem aligned
in America's favor.
What a difference a generation makes. According to a
Gallup Poll last month, nearly two-thirds of Americans now think of Russia
either as an ally or a nation " friendly" to U.S. interests. We still count some
countries as antagonists, if not outright enemies, but they are few in number
and tend to hang out on certain street corners in the Middle East and the north
end of the Korean peninsula.
In the main, we have old allies and new
"competitors" (the euphemism for former enemies such as Russia and especially
China), all of whom want the United States to lead. Then, when we do, or try to,
they accuse us of imperial arrogance. Our reactions to the wagging fingers --
surprise, shock, anger -- may satisfy on some level, but they are not very
productive.
No nation in human history, certainly no democratic nation,
has ever possessed the kind of global reach, economic power, technological
prowess and cultural influence of America 2000. How we use that power and
influence is another matter.
As we continue to learn, making foreign
policy isn't easy even -- perhaps especially -- if you are the only megapower on
the face of the Earth.
Consider the current administration, the first
full presidency since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of
its Eastern European empire.
The bookends of Bill Clinton's foreign
policy, it is said, are now in place, each initialed with an acronym that didn't
exist a decade ago. NAFTA, of course, stands for the North American Free Trade
Agreement, passed by a narrow margin in late 1993. PNTR, less familiar, stands
for permanent normal trade relations -- what Congress will
grant China, once the Senate acts, putting the world's most populous nation on
the same footing as nearly 200 other countries.
It's true that NAFTA and
PTNR speak volumes about American priorities and values in the post-Cold War
era. So-called globalization and free trade now dominate decision-making in
Washington. PNTR is the most dramatic case in point. China is a potentially huge
market for American goods and services and perhaps an export platform for plants
built there by U.S. companies. It also is a country that abuses human rights,
has acquired U.S. nuclear secrets and has dumped money into our national
elections.
The bottom line: "This will create hundreds of thousands of
new jobs and enhance our national security," said Rep. Bill Archer (R-Texas),
speaking in behalf of PNTR for China.
So, a trade-driven foreign policy:
Is that all there is? Not exactly. There are these remaining levers of the Cold
War called nuclear weapons, which continue to engage the two former adversaries
on three interrelated levels -- arms reductions, anti-missile programs and
potential threats from third countries.
America, probably more than ever
before, also is playing the role of facilitator and cheerleader -- the
equivalent of a business consultant summoned to nudge corporate managers to
conclusions they know intuitively to be correct but cannot accept without
outside help.
The prime example of this is the Middle East and the
ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, initiated by the
principals in secret, then later joined by the Americans as required -- as they
will be this week when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright meets with Yasser
Arafat in Washington.
The two Koreas also meet for the first time this
week, and you know where Pyongyang and Seoul will look if they need third-party
mediation.
But absent the overriding issue, circumstance now seems to
drive foreign policy, which is another way of saying there is no policy at all.
We react in Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans; we do nothing in Rwanda or East
Timor. In the new world, we make it up as we go along.
Still, almost by
accident, we may be sliding into a debate over foreign policy principles,
sparked largely by the Republicans. George W. Bush is an internationalist, and
he already has broken with Senate Republicans over their desire to set a date
for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo.
Al Gore is an
internationalist as well. He and Bush will fence mainly over domestic concerns,
but the larger conversation seems likely to encroach. How do we define our
national security interests today? When do we intervene abroad? Under what
circumstances do we place American troops in harm's way?
A presidential
campaign is a decent time to seek some answers.
------------
Michael Ruby is deputy editor of the Journal Sentinel. His e-mail
address is mruby@onwis.com
LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2000
