| By M. Gene Aldridge President/CEO, New Mexico Independence Research Institute, Inc. |
Foreign
Policy and Security Priorities for the United States: |
|
|
Summary The Bush Administration faces many challenges with respect to foreign policy and security. Two clear strategies emerge early in the Bush Administration that provoke questions and analysis. This is an important transition period for the U.S. because a whole new generation of relationships is emerging worldwide that needs our nation's attention. What should the foreign policy be for this new generation? One idea, partly emanating from the Clinton administration, was that the world can be glued together via economic relationships. The result of this policy has been that Russia is now sinking in corruption without effective democracy and China has not changed its domestic or international hegemony. Another competing idea for foreign policy suggests that the U.S. is losing its edge on military power specifically, and without that power there can be no leverage against either rogue nations like Iraq, Libya, the Afghanistan rebels, or new challenges from Russia and China. The foreign policy and security council debates should also center on terrorism and our policy for managing terrorists. The Republicans have a chance to make a difference for the world. Most citizens hope that we do not see "undisturbed continuance" from either the U.S. State Department or the Security Council. The Foreign Policy Challenge The Bush administration is faced with a very important task of setting right the foreign policy of the United States. The United States can ill afford to allow foreign policy to take a back seat in favor of domestic policy. This is an important transition period for the U.S. because a whole new generation of relationships is emerging worldwide that needs our nation's attention. What should that policy be for this new generation? The Bush administration will have to create a new direction around two clear strategies that seem to be emerging inside the GOP. Foreign Policy Option 1 One idea, partly emanating from the Clinton administration, was that the world can be glued together via economic relationships. The assumption is that if the competing global powers have a vested interest in creating stability via economics and trade, then democracy and human rights would win out over the push toward clashes of nationalism.1 The result of this policy has been that Russia is now sinking in corruption without effective democracy and China has not changed its domestic or international hegemony. In fact, China has given even more power and emphasis to building a ground military power, missile offensive systems, and a much larger navy. Both countries are exporting arms at alarming rates with countries that are clearly not in the interest of the U.S., e.g., Iran, Nigeria, North Korea. The result of this policy has been benign neglect of China and its actions, for example. In the case of Russia, they have been, for all practical purposes, abandoned by the U.S. while President Vladimir Putin works hard to shore up his strength regionally and internationally by selling arms and natural resources. Foreign Policy Option 2 Another competing idea for foreign policy suggests that the U.S. is losing its edge on military power specifically, and without that power there can be no leverage against either rogue nations like Iraq, Libya, the Afghanistan rebels, or new challenges from Russia and China. This group clearly wants to spend money to restablize the U.S. military while having a more balanced relationship with countries like China. Japan's economic weakness in Asia continues to alarm those Asia watchers with respect to the growing strength of China, absent a stronger Japan. The Japanese - U.S. relationship has been stabilizing in Asia for a number of years. None of the countries who oppose the U.S. power base in the world can afford to stand by and do little or nothing. They will act with two faces; one that supports continued economic globalization (because this feeds China's need to keep peace on the home front) and the other that continues to build against a U.S. that one day might challenge their policies on human rights, drug control, religious tolerance, trade, and arms control on advanced weapons to rogue nations. The New International Relationships The formation of new and interesting international relationships has begun in earnest throughout the world. The Americas, particularly, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, and even Cuba have been moving steadily toward relationships in the European Union (EU) and toward Asia that require immediate attention. Nigeria and Russia are completing talks on a revived relationship that includes huge arms sales to Nigeria and a closer developmental program from Russian that will allow Nigeria to enter the arms manufacturing and marketing business in Africa. This situation is quite ominous for the future of Africa. More weapons is what Africa needs, right? China is getting very cozy with North Korea (alliance), Central Asia (oil), and Iran(oil) and South Korea (trade and positioning in Asia). China seems to be moving toward greater regionalization while trying to enhance military and domestic strength. China has become quite comfortable with Chinese Singapore in recent years even using Lee Kuan Yew to support its work in Hong Kong. One analysis of the situation suggests that the "readiness" of China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, simply not knowing what position the U.S. will take in the coming years, will create their need to develop a worse case scenario with the U.S. This, in turn, may cause the U.S. to take a harder line position against both nations.2 The Middle East remains very problematic for both Israel and the Muslim nations that are lining up behind the Palestinians. This situation could explode far beyond the ability of the U.S. to control the situation or even to offer more opportunity to continue the peace discussions. A special team inside the U.S. State Department should be assembled to manage the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, but distance should be maintained so that the U.S. cannot be pulled into a Middle East crisis that consumes the Bush Administration as it did in the Clinton Administration. India and Pakistan still could one day be the undoing of the Asian continent. Both have nuclear devices and continue to threaten the stability of the region. It should be noted that China and Russia are vying for the affection of the Central Asia and Caucasus region and this will have to factor into the future of U.S. foreign policy. Japan, Taiwan and Korea, given their economic instability in the near term, could get very nervous about the growing presence of Chinese PLA army and PLA navy in the region. Some analysts believe that Japan could well begin a much more aggressive policy toward military preparedness. A quick status review of Indonesia and Philippines, for example, demonstrates the instability of Southeast Asia. Continued European and insurgency foreign relations issues will challenge the U.S. foreign policy as well. Colombia has internationalized its civil war with the rebels by inviting other nations to the table to discuss the issues for civil unrest in Colombia. The FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) have received weapons from Russia and aid from Iran. It is hypothesized that China will keep attention on North Korea, Myanmar and Pakistan all the while U.S. foreign policy is diverted to South America.3 President Bush has a penchant for focusing on Latin America. Will he be preoccupied with Latin America to the exclusion of Asia? Chinese philosophers like to say, "Look West while I go East". Cultural Values and Asia This is China's strategy and the U.S. should not buy into the cultural nonsense about "Asian Confucian values" which are so different from the individualistic values of the West. Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister of Singapore, still likes to bait the West with his call for our attention to "Asian Confucian Values". It is a silly assertion because the values inside Asia by those of us who study these cultures is varied and quite different. Does India, for example, have the same Asian values as China? Chinese values are not the values of all of Asia. The U.S. must be very careful to not allow this dialogue to continue unanswered. Classic reading by all Americans should be Chris Patton's book entitled, East and West, wherein he outlines the issues he faced in the handover of Hong Kong.3 Lee Kuan Yew and the Chinese in China cannot afford to have Hong Kong managed democratically, it proves that there are hard alternatives in Asia to the strong arm tactics of both China and even Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. On these issues the U.S. must be strong or else Asia will perceive us as being weak by their own cultural standards. Kosovo and Macedonia, for example, will remain important for U.S. foreign policy consideration. Should the U.S. continue to supply military "peacekeepers" to these regions of the world? Should the taxpayer of the U.S. pay for this activity? Many of these issues are designed to keep the U.S. attention on the small issues while the larger nations prepare for an eventual confrontation with the U.S. What should be the foreign policy of the U.S. in light of these distractions? Condoleeza Rice and President Bush's security council will have to ensure that these questions are evaluated. Challenges to U.S. Position in the World These foreign policy debates are substitutes for the real issues the U.S. must face with respect to our role in a world where many nations want to challenge the U.S., but dare not, at least, not yet. The debate should also center on terrorism and our policy for managing terrorists. Condolezza Rice, President Bush's security advisor, visited us in New Mexico some months ago. She is committed to managing the issues surrounding terrorism because it is clear to her that accurate intelligence systems, and first strike capabilities blunt the effects of terrorist actions. Terrorists must be brought to trial in international and domestic courts for their actions. Each terrorist must know that the U.S. will be unrelenting in its efforts to stop the threats. The U.S. military must now be even more vigilant in its efforts to stop the exploitation of our military resources for these purposes. Demographics and Economics The United States success story is not only the idea of liberty and economics, but the demographics which our immigration policies have created for us. It is imperative that President Bush work to include the Mexican workers, particularly on the U.S.- Mexican Border as transitional workers to the U.S. economy. Congress has already begun dialogue on this issue with President Fox of Mexico. Mexican workers will offer us new energy, lower labor costs in the beginning, and a continuing stream of young people to a U.S. economy that is dynamic and highly productive. For too long now the U.S.-Mexico Border has been ignored by many who have occupied the White House. George W. Bush seems to understand the U.S. and Mexico Border issues. The U.S. and particularly the White House and State Department should provide a strong economic hand to economic development of the border region as a separate and important economic zone of activity. This has to be a regional top priority for U.S. foreign policy in the NAFTA region. Immigration and Diversity Important to our National Future In other ways the U.S. foreign policy fosters growth economically, and thus affects our national security. By immigrating East Indian workers to the U.S. high technology industry we have opened new demographic opportunities for the U.S. that enhances our position as world leader economically, for example. Hispanic populations in the U.S. now equal the number of African Americans in the U.S. Nations that do not work on their demographics become stagnate economically. As our nation ages, President Bush has positioned himself to lead the new and exciting role that Mexican and U.S. relations will take in the next decade by offering different opportunities for Mexicans in Mexico and in the U.S. This is good for the U.S. because it means a balance in worker competition and in providing a youthful population to protect the future of the U.S. economy and a method whereby Mexicans can go back home with real skills developed in the U.S. As we view it, this is a national security issue and one that lends credibility to our efforts in the Americas. It is true, that as the U.S. population ages (2000-2030), its investment and consumption will increase due to older populations in the marketplace. Consumption and investment are the hallmarks of a mature society that has strong economic stability. Japan does not have this luxury. Germany and Europe are suffering from demographic drag economically. The greatest competition demographically may come from India and Southeast Asia, i.e., Singapore and maybe Malaysia. South Africa holds promise if the political forces can become stable enough to harness the rich natural resources that this nation can offer the rest of the world. In the short term, China, in our view, will not be able to sustain their growth without support from the U.S. economy, which is why we should ensure that our policy include pressure on them for access to our marketplace. Secretary of State Colin Powell must craft a unique policy that includes these issues to satisfy the two factions of the Republican Party. On the one hand, he must appear to be reaching out to other nations geo-politically while strengthening the U.S. power base with allies upon whom we can rely. If the U.S. State Department runs true to form, the bureaucratic snails will slow the process with all their twittering. New secretaries always have this challenge in assembling their teams inside the State Department. As never before, the United States of America needs real statesmen (and women) who will take each of these regions of the world and aggressively create new policy and communicate this policy into national action. The U.S. cannot afford any longer the benign foreign policy that we have witnessed this past eight years. The military have suffered in this process and it is a crime the manner in which our military families have had to survive, sometimes by food stamps. It leaves our military weakened and the world less stable. No one ever promised that real leadership is easy. But the U.S. must rise to the occasion because our voice is important to the survival of the human species, at least geo-politically. Current Economic Conditions and Foreign Policy It should be noted that the economic downturn of 2001, whether it becomes a full blown recession or not, could affect our foreign policy and our national security. Nations that depend upon the U.S. for their own exports to this country will see dramatic shifts in their economy due to the U.S. slowdown. China, for example, is most vulnerable to this condition. Make no mistake, our economic position plays very strongly in other world markets, but we cannot stand still and allow other nations and trade blocs to create new market positions that could outflank the U.S. economic goals. This is beginning to happen in South America and Asia where the EU has become quite aggressive in Brazil, Shanghai and Viet Nam respectively. The U.S. must continue to compete head-on in world markets. Russia, too, is looking to the EU to help them grow their economy. Cuba is another arena where other nations are taking advantage of the U.S. absence. "The New World Order" was the first post Cold War foreign relations doctrine and was developed by former President George Bush. Our strongest action associated with this doctrine was Desert Storm. We have since seen the breakup of the international institutions that created a united front against rogue countries like Iraq. Under crisis, differences can be put aside for short gains by all nations, but the crisis is over now and the world is watching the U.S. for its new and emerging foreign policy by President George W. Bush. The Republicans have a chance to make a difference for the world. Most citizens hope that we do not see "undisturbed continuance" from the U.S. State Department. Condoleeza Rice and Secretary Colin Powell offer each citizen new hope for a much better foreign policy and a security council that is decisive and certainly not benign. Notes: 1. htttp://www.stratfor.com/SERVICES/GUI/decade.asp - Global Intelligence Update, Decade Forecast Š Decade Through 2005. 2. http//www.stratfor.com/SERVICES/GUI/forecasts.asp 3. Patton, Chris, East-West, McMillian Pan Books, London, 1999. Read pp.146-172 for PattonÕs analysis of the cultural value debates he had with Lee Kuan Yew. About the author: M. Gene Aldridge is a regular writer for our GOPUSA.com. He is the President/CEO of the New Mexico Independence Research Institute, Inc. Aldridge is a professor in the graduate programs of Troy State
|
|
|
This article, from the New Mexico Independence Research Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. NMIRI Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of NMIRI or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to: Editorial Coordinator, NMIRI 2401 Nieve Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005. Phone (505) 523 8800 or FAX to (505 523 8800; e-mail is gsaldridge@zianet.com |
