Change: A New Foreign Policy

Even if you listen to all the presidential debates, you will learn precious little about the kind of foreign policy the next president plans to follow. "Change" is on all lips. The fact that the foreign policies the Bush administration followed are wrong-headed is commonly understood, even by many Republicans. However, what is going to replace these policies is barely discussed. We hear plenty about Iraq, some about Iran, a bit about restoring our reputation overseas and the merit of talking to our adversaries, but little about what we are gong to tell them.

Here are the key elements of a new approach. We cannot retreat from the world and we cannot remedy all its ills, let alone act as a global cop. Hence we must set priorities. On the must do list, first priority is the prevention a nuclear attack on us and on anybody else. The massive killings that such an attack would cause would trigger retaliatory attacks, which would inflict still more massive casualties, and would cause a major curtailing of rights in the name of preventing still future attacks. This means, for instance, that in dealing with Russia, the next president must put the highest priority on an acceleration of the programs that seek to better safeguard small nuclear arms and the fissile material from which nuclear bombs can be made. Ditto in dealing with Pakistan. And there must be no uranium for India until it at least joins the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Second, we must limit our interventions in the internal affairs of other nations to truly vital matters -- vital meaning when life and death are directly at issue. Hence we should, working with other nations, stop genocides. We should have been in Rwanda. We should be in Darfur. We need well be in Kosovo. The Australians did good when they marched into East Timor, and the Brits into Sierra Leone. Also, we are entitled to stop an attack on us, but only when there is a clear and imminent danger -- a right already recognized by international law.

Third, we should recognize that the majority of the people in the world, including -- data show -- most Muslims, abhor violence. They reject terrorist attacks, invasions of other countries, and genocides. They make for potential Partners in Peace -- whether or not they also are ready to introduce Western-style democratic regimes and to respect the full plethora of human rights.

This about as much as I can do within the limit of one posting. I am tempted to cite my book on the subject, but fear being charged with self-promotion. I hence refer you to what Jonathan Rauch has to say on the subject [here] and to Samantha Power's new book on Sergio Vieira de Mello, Chasing the Flame. In it, Vieira de Mello, a career U.N. official, is quoted as saying "Security is the first priority, and the second priority, and the third priority, and the fourth priority."

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at George Washington University and the author of Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. For details www.securityfirstbook.com To contact Amitai Etzioni, email [e-mail]

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think they should call 'truce day', and hold a parley. Not just over there and over wherever, but like, everywhere. White flag isn't surrender, it means, 'hey, let's all put down the rifles, and have coffee'. If the only way to 'win' is not to play, then don't. Just a thought...

[Dap]

Professor Etzioni, seems ya put me on the spot, while I find myself critical of your essays/posts many times, and I guess I could be here also because of the absence of application across the board to an unmentioned country, I will refrain.

Seems, I find myself for the most part in agreement with your post, and I'm not of the mind to nit-pick at the soundness of it within its *strict* context.

In other words, I want to give credit when it is due.

Truth be told, I enjoyed your essay and reading suggestion of "Chasing the Flame" by Samantha Power.

I who also like to put something in context:

In the course of examining Vieira de Mello's views, Samantha Power sets out her own: "In severe crises, mere humanitarian missions are not enough; the international community must be prepared to use force to keep the peace. "Security is the first priority, and the second priority, and the third priority, and the fourth priority," she quotes Vieira de Mello as saying. Power does not want the United States to be the world's policeman, but she does think there should be a tough cop out there, a multilateral one -- preferably a transformed and strengthened United Nations that has far greater support from the United States and other leading powers than it does."

It is of import to take note the Security first, second, third, fourth, quote, is in strict context of *Severe Humanitarian Crises* and should be the job of a strong international peace keeping force for the protection of the helpless.

Agape. (Love in fellowship of our shared fragile Humanity)

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Summary of Senator Obama"s goals for the parrots of empty words rhetoric:
Giving Tax breaks to companies who create jobs in America.
Increasing teachers pay so it attracts more intelligent worthy individuals.
Expand the congressional health care plan to all and creating a big enough pool to make it possible for all people to buy those with no exclusion for preexisting conditions, and making healthcare portable.
Making health care portable so we are not tied to our jobs enabling us to realize our potential in a true capitalistic way.
Try to negotiate with world instead of trying to bully the world and hence making even the Europeans call us the biggest threat to world peace.
Provide consensus building leadership, so that the Russians, Chinese and Indians do not feel compelled to form an alliance to protect the rest of the world from American tyranny.
Try to make college more affordable.
Inspire us to serve our country and rise above our selfish unfulfilling motives of making money.
Try to decrease the influence of Lobbyist (idealistic goal and probably unattainable as Senator Obama explains in his book with brutal honesty).
Try to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans by emphasizing our common themes rather than dwelling on the differences.
Try to keep Medicare and social security solvent unlike the republicans who want to eliminate them ( under the slogans of privatization, budget busting, and have deliberately got us there by busting the budget, warmongering, overspending on defense so people would have no choice but to voluntarily accept the cuts )
Try to prevent the country from becoming the slaves of faceless corporations, serving ever more powerful billionaires.
Try to bring together and start a dialogue between the religious and secular elements of society ( not by giving in and start praying more but by conveying that it was the Baptists on whose insistence the separation of Church and State was added in the constitution )

Redefine Liberalism as a noble desire to work towards a common ideal of taking care of each other as demonstrated by social security, police service, fire departments, Medicare, unemployment insurance, retraining programs, and adding means to make college more affordable, working towards eliminating homelessness ( not a minority only issue anymore but middle class issue now that millions loose homes, veterans with PTSD and brain injuries homeless ), reinstating a new GI bill, funding the VA hospitals better . To the cynics I say YES WE CAN just like we will be able to afford another 100 years of war if McCain in elected.

[57andfemale]

Thank you!

And important part of Obama's health care plan: Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.

Also a national health insurance exchange that will level the playing field of individuals or self-employed people (like me).

He should highlight these points in the health care discussions. They get lost in the mandate fight.

He is as detailed as any candidate I have ever seen, plus he has the skills to achieve these policies.

[lldem]

Now this guy is really over the edge. He's actually using intelligence and common sense to lay out a foreign policy that might work and do some good in the world. Obviously it could never be considered since it's not going to make a bunch of wealthy Americans even wealthier.

[SamThornton]

Professor Etzioni is one of the clearest thinkers on US foreign policy around. For a really excellent and detailed review of his "Security First" by Nicholas Weeler at Amazon, try http://tinyurl.com/3c5t8e. One would hope his wisdom and expertise were drawn on by a future Democratic administration.

IMHO, his point that the project to convert the rest of the world's governments to US-style democracies at the point of a gun -- first articulated by Woodrow Wilson and most recently by the Neoconservatives -- is inherently self-defeating is key to an understanding of both our past foreign policy missteps and our future prospects.

[Sundialsvc4]

If "stopping nuclear attack" is listed as "priority one," as you suggest, then any other priority will never see the light of day.

Strange as it may seem, the realistic probability of nuclear attack is very slight. It's an extravagant attack, certainly the most destructive scenario imaginable, but I think it captivates policymaker's attention partly because of these attributes... out of scale to its actual importance.

As we saw seven years ago, it doesn't take a big bad bomb to do big bad damage. It just takes a perceived enemy ... namely, us.

We are still clinging to the post-World-War-II Cold War mentality that has unfortunately brought financial ruin to many nations on this planet even if they do not know it quite yet. America needs to reposition herself as a trusted and trustworthy leader in the world community that can actually show itself dedicated to making a real difference in the lives of ... millions of ... men, women, and children.

Nations ... are people.

What would happen if we treated them as such?

[57andfemale]

The Lugar-Obama bill addressed just this issue: Obama was able to work with Richard Lugar, get it through committee, get it passed, and even get Bush to sign a decent bill on an issue he had ignored.

That's effectiveness from Day One.

[mommadona]

Gee - how about THIS....

The next POTUS states that the United States, understanding that nuclear weapons are no longer an option as a tool of war - will immediately start eliminating it's COMPLETE STOCKPILE of nuclear weapons.

Also, any further research and development will be with FISSION-based - not FUSION-based, with the focus on making the results more environmentally compatible and storage less of a grave concern.

NEXT: The new POTUS would declare the following:

WAR, AS A POLITICAL TOOL, IS NO LONGER AN OPTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY. Our DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE will be just that - defense of our country's shores and natural resources.

"NATIONAL INTERESTS" will no longer include the security and protection of private enterprises who wish to do business in unstable countries and regions.

These "corporate interests" ARE NOT A PART OF OUR NATION'S INTERESTS and the corporations will be held completely and privately responsible for the security of their facilities and personnel.

There. That'll clear up that little "Pax Americana" pimple on Ms. Liberty's pretty mug.

[ProudNeoCon]

After those declaration POTUS will announced that all kids will need to learn Chineses and Arabic, since he is not sure who will take us over first

[mommadona]

Boy, you guys are scared of your own shadows in those white sheets, huh.