Reading this op-ed in light of the Paris decision, it is hard to see much daylight between competing camps in the White House. The current administration has decided to approach the world purely on the basis of self-interest, and in that sense, the White House today has more in common with a stark, simple version of 19th century realism than it does with the more complicated, multifaceted diplomacy that has characterized the 70 years since the end of World War II. It represents a repudiation not just of Barack Obama but of decades of America genuflecting in the direction of “the community of nations” and peace through global institutions, such as the United Nations and multilateral alliances such as NATO. [...]
In fact, U.S. foreign policy since the middle of the 20th century has been characterized at best by a powerful tension between naked self-interest, idealism and retreat from the world. America as a global leader is almost entirely a product of World War II and the economic and political system established in 1945, anchored by the United Nations and the Bretton Woods economic framework that led to the dollar as a global reserve currency. Before then, the United States was at best ambivalent about “entangling alliances” (George Washington’s warning at the end of the 18th century) and entering into any long-term global commitments. The U.S. entered World War I only reluctantly, did not sign on to the League of Nations treaty it helped craft, then retreated from global affairs until forced to confront the challenge of Germany and Japan in the late 1930s.
Americans’ widespread belief that theirs is a special country, an “indispensable nation” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright liked to say, was a powerful strain of U.S. policy in the second half of the 20th century, especially in the arena of human rights. Yet, it is simply wrong to think that the U.S. ever pursued a foreign policy rooted primarily in that idealism. Yes, the United States led the way to craft numerous multilateral institutions, but most of those served America quite well and did not always serve others quite so nicely. The economic system championed by the United States has undoubtedly been a major cause of greater global affluence and economic flourishing, but in pure power politics, the U.S. has been closer in spirit to what McMaster and Cohn wrote. [...]
But Americans’ embrace of that community has always been more cynical than we like to admit. Much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment signed on the idea that when it came to idealism about working collectively with other countries to preserve the global order, that was fine if it worked and was to be jettisoned if it did not. As the late Richard Holbrooke said (though he did not coin the phrase), the basic tenet from FDR onward was: “Multilateral if we can; unilateral is we must.” Not as blunt as America First, for sure, but not so far from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment