Nominating America To Be The World's Designated Driver

Obama's first foreign policy decisions bode well for establishing America's role as a global "designated driver" in the 21st Century, when the world is drunk on unprecedented trends in finance, governance, geopolitics, religion, war, weather and more. The administration should follow through on initial gains and adopt as bold an approach for reimaging America abroad as it has taken towards ameliorating the financial crisis. This will require a fundamental departure from the past, when the American style of leadership abroad was predicated on hubris through might, rather than the preferred pride through humility.

Obama seems aware of this crucial distinction. He also seems to realize that before we can lead anything, we must first be able to look at ourselves in the mirror again without the shame of hypocrisy or human rights violations. Indeed, we should follow advice offered by Jules Renard when he said, "Be modest! It is the kind of pride least likely to offend."

Most ire for the United States arises from what is seen as imperialist arrogance, characterized by double standards and unwelcome intrusions into others' affairs. This is especially true for paternalistic nation-building adventures such as we led in Iraq and in which we are still engaged in Afghanistan. But here's the thing: the world still looks to us above all others to set the example. So much about American democracy and capitalism is considered a de facto 'gold standard' for developed and developing nations alike. And even if many blame us for the financial meltdown, we are also who the rest of the world naturally assumes will correct it.

History suggests that we would be better off using our far-reaching influence passively, by making the necessary sacrifices to set a high-ground example. This is opposed to the presumptive and arrogant international meddling most associated with the colonial era (and the past eight years for that matter). A more passive form of leadership is presumably part of the reasoning behind the "smart power" paradigm, emphasized by Secretary of State Clinton during her confirmation hearings. The administration is right to not support preconditions for states like Iran, pending diplomatic engagement. But more importantly, it is right to actually require such preconditions for itself --first and foremost by acknowledging and righting past wrongs. Indeed, one cannot ask anyone else to cease an activity in which they themselves engage unapologetically.

It is in this fashion that America can, as it were, "be the bigger man" and take the first step. Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo and the administration's plan to reduce nuclear stockpiles by 80 percent both reflect this higher-ground approach. And most importantly, both will reduce the debilitating hypocrisy that has undermined our credibility for decades. However, each also represents a first step toward much larger global objectives in the spheres of human rights and nuclear security. Whether or not the administration follows through on these larger objectives could very well be what defines its foreign policy legacy down the road.

Closing Guantanamo is both a practical and a symbolic gesture. It represents the necessary departure from sordid, inhumane practices that all but nullify our ability to excoriate equal or even baser depravity by others. The logical conclusion for this meaningful shift, following through on Obama's first step, is to institute an investigative body along the lines of Senator Patrick Leahy's proposed "Truth Commission". An investigation is necessary for achieving any level of closure, which is in turn necessary for ever moving on. Indeed, the administration's position so far seems to be forward-looking. But without dredging up the skeletons of the past, the American image will always be subject to the detriment of the doubt by its more committed critics.

Likewise, drastically reducing our excessive nuclear stockpile in a renewed agreement with Russia, when the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires later this year, would finally free us from a decades-old double standard within the current global nonproliferation regime, wherein we seek to police inchoate nuclear states by appealing to an authority that we ourselves do not even respect. That is, the nominal authority provided by the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for declared nuclear signatories to disarm -- a charge that has remained mostly unheeded, most notably, by Russia and the U.S..

Consequently, other signatory states such as Iran now appeal to the NPT to point out both its own right to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes", as well as the hypocrisy of those who seek to prevent it from doing so. Indeed, the Islamic Republic is surrounded by nuclear states that have not even bothered to enter into the treaty, namely Israel. (North Korea experienced this revelation in 2003 when it pulled out of the agreement altogether to enjoy nuclear carte blanche, testing rockets and enriching weapons-grade plutonium with relative impunity.) U.S. and Russian disarmament would dilute one of the Islamic Republic's strongest arguments for its nuclear program and would give the rest of the international community more faith in the current nonproliferation regime as a whole.

But beyond this first step, the Obama administration can also capitalize on the new agreement's momentum for more far-reaching reform; namely, in pursuit of a plan for a nuclear-free world, first articulated by former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger in their January 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Their plan calls for the eventual eradication of all nuclear weapons worldwide and stresses that such an objective is indeed possible.

Recently, this idea was explored more extensively in Foreign Affairs by Ivo Daaldar and Jan Lodal, who furnished the plan with the moniker, the "Logic of Zero". Here's Daaldar and Lodal's procedural outline pursuant to this end:

First, Washington must establish as official policy the limited purpose of U.S. nuclear forces: to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by others. Other purposes are no longer realistic or necessary for the United States. Second, given this limited purpose of its nuclear weapons, the United States should reduce its nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 total weapons. This would be more than enough to convince anyone that the United States possesses the capacity to respond to any use of nuclear weapons with devastating effect. Third, the United States must work to put in place a comprehensive international nuclear-control regime that goes well beyond the present nonproliferation regime's accounting and monitoring of nuclear materials. It must include all fissile materials and provide an airtight verification system to enable the world to move from thousands of nuclear weapons to hundreds, to tens, and ultimately to zero.

Finally, Washington must launch a vigorous diplomatic effort to convince the world of the logic of zero -- and of the benefits of taking the difficult steps necessary to get there.

As Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told the Associated Press, "it appears that reductions down to 1,000 warheads [from an estimated 2,300 warheads] are possible." Thus by reducing our inflated arsenal (and abolishing the past logic of using ten pounds of flour to make one biscuit), the Obama administration would already be in a position to check off the first two benchmarks outlined by Daaldar and Lodal. The remainder of the process would not be easy, but it would certainly be within the capacity of a highly capable and driven foreign policy team. The international community, at least for now, has far more respect for the new administration than its predecessor. To squander this leadership opportunity would be a tragedy.

Following through forcefully on interrogation policy reform and nuclear disarmament, each to a bold and far-reaching, but logical conclusion, is the most readily accessible anodyne for the wounds left by the past administration. Each is also important in that it demands from the United States a degree of humility, sacrifice and, perhaps, some 'turning the other cheek'. We are easily in a position to be the international community's "designated driver", we need only lead the charge without taking charge.

Such bold initiatives would reestablish the United States' role as the true exemplar of freedom and humanity during a crucial global moment that Fareed Zakaria has labeled the "Rise of the Rest". Through passive and humble leadership efforts now, the new administration can achieve foreign policy objectives that will restore American pride and invite emulation down the road when it really counts. Having taken the first step on each issue, the Obama administration is now in an ideally opportune position to go for the gold. It would be a shame if they ended up sitting on their laurels.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

Nice talking points for the campaign. However, now holding the office, let's see the execution. For example closing Gitmo, "very soon", "soon", in the future.
Like stopping rendition, except Halder just argued to continue.
The talking points will not in fact happen, they will just be spun as progress towards a goal.

[midwife42]

Why must you lead? Why is the American way any better than any number of alternative models? It seems to me that this is something the US seems to feel the need for, to always be out in front, leading the way. Well, that lead has resulted in a system that is seemingly causing the world, rich and poor to fall into a huge downward spiral, not to mention caused enormous amounts of misery and pain in Iraq (a single example of imperialistic hubris, with others too numerous to mention). I'd rather see a world where those best qualified take the lead, and that the US accepts that it one of a family of nations, and not its paternal head. At the moment we have one giant rogue nation, and while much of what you write makes good sense, it grates that this constant theme in the US relationship to the world shines through even here.
Frankly, if one wanted a country to lead, I'd suggest that at the moment the best placed would be one of the Nordic countries.

[jhNY]

Our financial wizards, underwriters and ratings agency geniuses have led the world over the cliff of the greatest financial debacle possibly ever. Perhaps we should be content for the next little while to shut the F up after we say we're sorry, which of course will never happen. Our own high regard for our own motives and doings is a lot less contagious than the author reckons, and right now, as commenters have noted, beyond being the cause of the financial debacle, it is us insisting on slowing down practical action on global warming, us who is the most militaristic nation astraddle the globe and us who consumes the dwindling supply of the world's resources disproportionally, all while preaching the glories of our peculiar brand of debt slavery and God to the consternation and exasperation of thinking people throughout the world.

I do agree with the author that we might do well to lead by example, however, if the leading can be the sort that comes without fanfare and bright lights, because that way, if nobody wants to look or listen, they have but to turn away. As it is now , the guns and bullhorns we have trained on nearly everybody in our way seems to inspire another kind of attention, which is rooted in the fear of what the hell those crazy Americans are going to do next.

[devanate]

I think before we can be the designated driver, we need to get past our hangover by investigating and prosecuting all crimes of the Bush administration. Only then can we truly move forward.

[margie4]

God save us all if the US is again to become the world's designated driver. The global economic collapse is our doing; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are our doing; the lack of forward motion on climate change is to a great extent our doing; the rapid depletion of the world's natural resources is more our doing than anyone else's; and the re-emergence of extremist religious views as valid political stands is as much our problem domestically as it is anywhere in the world.
Until we collectively shift our values from acquisition and expansionism to collectivism we are in no position to drive anyone anywhere. Even an extraordinary president like Barack Obama will have an insanely difficult time convincing Americans of that, and political considerations are such that it would be suicide for him to simply impose his philosophy on our general population and on the rest of the world.
You underestimate the ferocity of global 'anti-americanism".

[RoloTomassi]

"So much about American democracy and capitalism is considered a de facto 'gold standard' for developed and developing nations alike."

Read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" and reimagine what you think you know about this issue; our insistence on spreading free market fundamentalism around the world is a driving force AGAINST taking the US seriously [as many nations now feel that we foisted an unsustainable economic system upon them].

Such an attitude is right and appropriate, and with any luck many nations will move away from the "American way" of doing business and building their own governents. We are no where near perfect, and right now we are quite rightly considered a prime example of how not to operate on many different levels.

We should get our own house in order before we seek to regain any sort of leadership postion in the global community, and it is obvious that we are far from reaching that goal.

And until NeoLiberal economics, NeoConservative warmongering and the basic attitude that we are permitted to undermine international law can be seen as regretable aspects of our nation's past, we don't deserve to lead ANYTHING.

[Stuart Whatley - Huffpost Blogger]

You have a critical tone, and yet you've only reinforced my central points.

you: "our insistence on spreading free market fundamentalism around the world is a driving force AGAINST taking the US seriously [as many nations now feel that we foisted an unsustainable economic system upon them]."

Indeed, this is exactly what I speak of when I call for a more passive role in the international community -- setting the example and leading the charge on issues, rather than taking charge and "foisting".

you: "We should get our own house in order before we seek to regain any sort of leadership postion in the global community"

You just repeated a point I made in the piece, which reads:

"But more importantly, [the administration] is right to actually require such preconditions for itself --first and foremost by acknowledging and righting past wrongs. Indeed, one cannot ask anyone else to cease an activity in which they themselves engage unapologetically."

The "getting your own house in order" is precisely my point. In this piece, the argument is directed specifically towards torture and nuclear stockpiles, but it need not be confined to those issues.

you: "we don't deserve to lead ANYTHING."

And from me, "[Obama] also seems to realize that before we can lead anything, we must first be able to look at ourselves in the mirror again without the shame of hypocrisy or human rights violations."

[RoloTomassi]

Fair points Stuart, but I just felt that the overall tone of your piece is jumping the gun a bit; I feel that the issue is more dire in consequences than your article allows, and that you do a little "hand waving" in order to move past those problematic areas to get to the potentially positive role the US could play in the future.

Apparently we agree that the US isn't in a valid position to lead from currently, but I think the difference in POV is found in what we feel it would take to return us to a place where US global leadership is a positive venture.

NeoLiberalism in economics and NeoConservative hawks in government are temporarily marginalized in the US, but they are no where near removed; until we are well past the bankrupt policies of Bush in government and Friedman in economics, the folks who borught us to this point are simply laying low and looking for the opportunity to resurge and restore the policies that have been such a failure.

We need a good long spell of national introspection in order to reground ourselves; unfortunately we still have 30 - 40% of the country that believe BushCo policies were acceptable, and an even larger national self-perception and basic understanding problem in regards to domestic economics and social services. It is a mess that will likely take decades to sort out, if we're not set back by the continuation of failed policies.

[winstonian24]

Become stronger by being weaker. Brilliant.

[beenn15]

sounds like a true republican argument. Do you think we're stronger now after the last eight years? Or have we lost some of our clout? How do you influence a country when they see you as irrelevant and unworthy? You can either bomb the h e l l out of them and make them listen... or you can be relevant and respected when you share your ideas and concerns with other countries. I never really understood why a country would need hundreds of nuclear warheads anyway? I mean... how many nuclear bombs do you need to obliterate the world?

[blaqntelligence]

Become stronger by being humble.
Humility is not the same thing as humiliation.
President Obama understands that.
The world recognize and respect that.
America is learning that.
Neocons are irrelevant because they don't believe that.