On changing the course of US foreign policy
American foreign policy under George Bush and Condoleezza Rice is turning into an incubator of civil conflicts while being absent in other spheres, where it could do some good.
The US is not a prime cause of internal conflicts but it is helping to turn the smoldering embers of old hatreds among local tribes and sects into blazing violence. Since World War II, US foreign policy was the world’s indispensable peacemaker. It helped to save more lives and aid more people than can be counted. It is now turning into a fuel of war, civil conflicts and displaced people.
At the same time, Washington is neglecting conflicts that cause extraordinary human suffering but need not continue because resolution is achievable. Some of those are in Africa.
Trust in the goodness of the American people is fast disappearing among non-Americans, who hold the people responsible for US foreign policy since America bills itself as a leader of democracy. Here are some examples:
Iraq is drowning in civil war because of US foreign and defense policy mistakes. Lebanon is sliding to internal conflict because of Washington’s rejection of Hizbullah, a major political force in that country. In Palestine, rival factions are openly shooting at each other at a scale never seen before partly because of Washington’s refusal to deal with Hamas, which overwhelmingly won the last democratic elections.
More dangerously, Washington is trying to turn Iran’s various ethnic groups against the dominant Persians, who comprise about 40% of the population. It is also trying to play progressives forces and young people against traditionalist mullahs and other conservatives. It is not considering sufficiently the regional effects of destabilizing Iran alongside problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey and separatist Kurds. It is also not considering the weakness of the Central Asian countries near Iran, including Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. It is not considering the effects on the vast Muslim populations of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.
In Afghanistan, US policy is preventing a weak government from widening its writ over the entire country through dialogue with groups that Washington does not like. Those include factions within the Taliban who would prefer peace but go along with Taliban radicals because there is no room for them in the peace that Washington seeks for Afghanistan.
In all these situations, US foreign policy is a force of destabilization because it does not allow governments, even those elected democratically, to engage constructively with all parts of the local political spectrum in resolving internal conflicts.
Washington is also on a destabilizing path regarding North Korea. None of its threats or punishments has prevented that country’s march to nuclear weapons. Instead, Seoul is worried about American heavy handedness and China is reaping benefits by becoming the lead power, rather than the US, in finding solutions. Chinese leadership is destabilizing for the regional security balance affecting Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
In the misery-laden conflicts of Africa, the US, which used to be the prime force for good, is reporting absent. In Somalia, Washington has backed an Ethiopian invasion to overthrow an Islamist government without paving the way for anything stable in its stead. A nearly 30-year civil war that settled down just a year ago is being rekindled.
In the bloody mess of Darfur, Washington is against absent. A few days ago, China stepped in as a peacemaker because it is a friend of the Khartoum government. Should America really be allowing China to step into this vacuum?
Some 4 million people died of hunger and disease in Congo during a bloody war that continued in fits and starts for several decades. It was dubbed the First World War of Africa because it was so big and involved some nine countries in the end. Finally, elections took place in 2006 and the situation has calmed down a little. But US foreign policy remains absent.
Egypt, which has been a dictatorship for over 50 years, is no closer to becoming a freer country for its people. It is a prime ally of the US, but Washington is still perceived as a protector of the harsh regime rather than a dynamic pro-democracy advocate.
In Pakistan, the US dithers even as Islamabad allows al Qaeda safe havens to grow in the Waziristan tribal region. India is gaining ground as a nuclear power with Washington’s acquiescence and is now turning to Russia for civilian nuclear reactors and conventional weapons instead of to the West.
It is time for US foreign policy to change course not only in Iraq but also elsewhere.
11 Responses to “On changing the course of US foreign policy”
It’s good to know that everything is America’s fault Brij.
What about the other countries?
Where are European countries? What are they doing?
That being said, indeed, U.S. policy has to change in certain respects, especially Africa (and Europe’s obviously as well).
Agree for the most part, but believe you’re overstating the case of India. They were going to turn to Russia anyways due to their long standing policy/strategy of not becoming allied to closely with east or west.
Also agree with the above comments. Where is the EU?
I worked all over Africa. I constantly ran into savvy and dedicated development professionals from Germany (GTZ), Japan, Denmark, the Commonwealth Secretariat (UK based), Netherlands and yes, the UN, (WHO, FAO, UNESCO, UNICEF). No one’s policies were as ideologically corrupted as ours (in Africa we oppose birth control, use of condoms and clean needles).
Besides, what kind of a defense is it to say “they’re not helping either.” We’re the big dog, we should be leading. America can’t lead? Oh yeah, America can’t lead. Unless we’re leading with threats, war and divisive, inflammatory rhetoric that is pure trademark GOP.
And by the way, America was loved, admired and appreciated under Clinton. Under Bush, our diplomatic corp and development professionals are embarrassed to spout the lines they must, or lose their jobs.
Greendreams said: “And by the way, America was loved, admired and appreciated under Clinton.”
What about that obviously forgettable little incident in Rwanda? The Clinton administration bent over backwards to avoid labelling it a “genocide” and doing anything to forestall it.
The Rwandan slaughter, at its height, exceeded the killing levels of the Nazi death camps…largely with machetes. Hundreds of thousands of dead.
The Somalia fiasco anyone? Bush Pere insisted on getting in and out fast. He did. Then the activists got to Clinton, and he went back in. I recall the image of American bodies torn apart with the bare hands of Somalians on the front page of my Sunday paper.
Man, you could feel the “love and admiration” for America then.
Of course, Osama bin Laden referred to Clinton’s retreat from Somalia as shaping his view of the US as weak. In bin Laden’s words:
“After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
Yah, Clinton did wonders in Somalia.
BTW: Bush has done more for Africa than Clinton ever did. There have been a number of articles in the mainstream press on this, often by amazed activists.
Also, isn’t it funny how liberals have picked Darfur as “a good fight.” Pelosi was hopping to her feet when Bush mentioned Darfur at the State of the Union. I suspect they love Darfur because they know there is not a snowball’s chance in hell the US would intervene. Would Clinton have intervened in Darfur…hahahahahahahaha
The Democratic mantra: “With great power comes no responsibility!”
Bush on Africa…note the British newspaper analysis below, with regard to Bush policy not being for any clear political payback.
(From a couple of years back)
George W. Bush has done more to help Africa than other U.S. presidents, says Live 8 organizer Bob Geldof.
Geldof made the comment in an interview in the current issue of Time magazine. The Irish rocker was relating how he had to defend Bush while he was in France.
“[The French] refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he has actually done more than any American president for Africa. But it’s empirically so,” Geldof said.
(From “The Independent” Jan.2, 07)
The foreign affairs legacy of President George Bush so far speaks most loudly of terrorism, Afghanistan and the quagmire of Iraq.
But statistics just compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reveal that since taking over the Oval Office, Mr Bush, partly under pressure from his Christian supporters as well as celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof, has dramatically increased US aid to Africa.
Indeed, African nations have seen both development and direct humanitarian aid from the United States jump from a total of $1.4bn in 2001 to $4bn (£2bn) a year today. Over the same period, trade between the US and the continent has more than doubled.
The development aid is complemented by Mr Bush’s rapidly growing commitment to fighting HIV and Aids in Africa, as well as malaria. In what has become the largest health initiative of his presidency – the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) – Mr Bush has pledged $15bn over five years to fight HIV in Africa and provide drugs for Aids victims.
It is a record that has not been widely noticed in the US, particularly by critics of President Bush who prefer to play up his image on the world stage as narrowly focused on Iraq and fighting terror.
Nor is there any obvious domestic political dividend for him in reinforcing his African credentials. “He should be known for doubling development assistance and tripling it to Africa after a period in which US development assistance was essentially flat for decades,” the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted recently. “He should be known for the largest single investment in Aids and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government programme ever.”
Pushing Mr Bush to step up his commitment to Africa has been his core base of Christian supporters, for whom the Aids crisis and continuing strife on the continent has become a central issue.
“Bush and his Christian supporters seldom get the credit they deserve for their role in the global fight against Aids,” the Los Angeles Times noted. “US spending on the disease overseas under Bush has risen tenfold, while Christian groups have given unselfishly to the cause.”
In an another example of accelerating development aid to Africa, President Bush signed a law just before Christmas pledging $52m annually for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to the Democratic Republic of Congo following elections there. As with aid to other countries, it comes with strings attached, including a requirement that the government open up to trade and foreign investors.
Some African specialists complain that because of such conditions, American assistance is still more about self-interest than altruism.
“I know a lot of activist groups who believe that the President’s stated commitment to Africa is, at best, a play on words,” Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, an advocacy organisation, told The Washington Post. “There are conditions that are attached where the emphasis is more on countries that open up their markets so American companies can go in and privatise things.”
There was also early anxiety that the Pepfar programme on Aids was overly influenced by its Christian backers, who insisted on a heavy emphasis on sexual abstinence, a strategy many health care experts consider misguided. But as Pepfar has grown in importance, many of those doubts are fading.
Ok, I agree largely with the article on pretty much all points. But why do we keep rehashing that Bush’s administration is a disaster? Its been covered in great detail here and elsewhere. I feel the posts lately have been going in circles with just about everyone agreeing with eachother and little new evolving information coming out as a result. Just a criticism, because I really like TMV and don’t want to see it missing other issues that are important to us moderates as well.
No reasonable person would deal with the Islamist terrorists of Hamas and I am grateful that the Bush administration has refused to do so. This is one of the few things on which I agree with the Bush administration.
For whatever Bush has done, he deserves credit. But hhe kudos will be guarded precisely because of the strings that dome with his largesse.
I communities that have adopted his abstinence policy, the HIV rates are actually rising again. The condoms bought with US money must be US made (more expensive). People running these programs locally see that, and, once again, our reputation is besmirched.
Over everything, hangs the disaster in Iraq and our treatment of detainees. It will be a long, long time before we can recover from these blows to our prestige.
[...] We start with a rather stark(yet, accurate) look at foreign policy scribed by The Moderate Voice’s Brij Khindaria, On changing the course of US foreign policy. [...]
domajot: Can you cite evidence to back this statement?
It’s nice to know that the U.S. foreign policy is responsible for the things that happen around the world.
Hey, I have a question, what should U.S. foreign policy look like regarding poverty and disease crisis in Sub – Saharan Africa?