The Radicalization of American Foreign Policy by Newsday. Editorial 11:41am 6th Jan, 2004   (Published on January 4, 2004 by the Long Island, NY Newsday. Editorial).    After three years in office, it is clear that President George W. Bush has presided over one of the most radical transformations of U.S. foreign policy in history. His policy of unilateralism, pre-emption and regime change represents a dramatic and dangerous shift in emphasis away from more than 50 years of policy that was characterized by cooperation with allies, recognition of international norms and support for arms control.    When Bush stands for re-election later this year, Americans are going to be asked to ratify that new policy. Along with the effect on the nation's long-term fiscal health of huge deficits, the Bush foreign policy ought to be a central issue in the presidential campaign.    Bush's foreign policy is not just about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Indeed, this editorial page reluctantly supported the war against Saddam Hussein because we believed he represented a unique threat to U.S. security interests and could no longer be contained or reliably deterred. Rather, it is the manner in which Bush got the United States into the war and the overall thrust of the administration's diplomacy that causes us great concern.    Since the end of World War II, a cornerstone of the United States' foreign policy has been maintaining alliances and trying to build on the concepts of cooperative security and international law. The use or the threat to use the immense U.S. military power was certainly part of that approach to foreign policy. But it was not the be all and end all.    Take It or Leave It    The people who have formulated the Bush foreign policy, especially the neoconservatives who have dominated that policy-making, operate on a different set of assumptions. They believe that alliances and organizations such as the United Nations rob the United States of its freedom to act to protect its interests. With the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, they believe that the principal goal of foreign policy must be to maintain the United States as the most powerful nation in the world. They reject arms control as a primary way to contain nuclear weapons and favor unilateral action as a first, not last, option. The idea is: "You are either for us, or against us. Take it or leave it." This is a radical change.    There has been considerable opposition inside the administration to an America-alone approach, mainly from Colin Powell's State Department. But these thinkers have lost most, if not all, of the policy battles.    It's significant that one of Powell's top aides, the former director of policy planning at State, Richard Haass, has begun to publicly articulate an alternative to the unilateralism. Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued in a recent article in the Financial Times that the United States is not rich or powerful enough to sustain a unilateralist policy. In this ever-more-interdependent world, Washington ignores its long-term interests by acting arrogantly and alone, he says.    Iraq is a case in point. The United States certainly had the power to occupy Iraq. But the question now is whether it has the resources and will to rebuild Iraq on its own. And having made such a major commitment to Iraq, does Washington have the manpower or wealth to deal with other crises that might face it at the same time? The Army is spread too thin, even in Iraq, some experts say, and the $87 billion narrowly approved by a reluctant Congress will add to growing budget deficits.    "What will it take, then, for the U.S. to drum up the necessary international support for all that it seeks to accomplish in the world -- and in the process translate its enormous power into lasting influence?" Haass asks in the article. "Part of the answer is consultation -- genuine consultation, not simply informing others of decisions already reached."    U.S. Didn't Woo Allies    These are damning words from a highly respected former administration official. Haass is saying that the allies did not simply refuse to help the United States in Iraq; the administration did not really try to bring them aboard. Unlike Bush's father preparing for the gulf war in 1990, this President Bush did not move heaven and earth to keep a wide coalition together. Granted, keeping a coalition together often means compromise and settling for the lowest common denominator. But the benefits of cooperative action often outweigh the costs.    The neocons have an entirely different perspective: They see the obligations of alliances as too constraining and believe only bold American leadership can protect the nation from the threats it faces.    Haass is critical of the administration for rejecting such diplomatic initiatives as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming without offering alternatives. Even if those were proposals were flawed -- and the facts suggest they were -- the United States could have maintained a consensus by proposing better ways to accomplish the goals, Haass says. That is a profoundly important point. Foreign policy is as much about means as about ends.    After three years of the Bush foreign policy, the United States is more isolated than at any time since before World War II and more unpopular in the world than ever before. Sure, some of that unpopularity comes with the territory, from being the world's strongest nation. But much of it stems from the arrogant, unilateralist attitude of this White House.    If the United States were so all-powerful that it did not need help from anybody else, then maybe this policy could be justified. But that is not the case. Clearly, trying to fight three wars at once -- one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and one against terrorism -- is stretching U.S. resources beyond what this nation can long sustain, as Haass points out.    Election Year Politics    Don't be surprised if this administration tones down its unilateralist rhetoric this election year. Powell has an article in Foreign Affairs magazine saying the foreign policy isn't that much of a departure after all. But the question for voters in 2004 is: What will a Bush foreign policy be once he and his go-it-alone cohorts are re-elected? Of course, the Democrats must present a viable alternative. Naive pacifism won't win an election when the nation is under attack by terrorists. But the vision of Bush and his neoconservatives, unbound by re-election considerations, is one that voters ought to ponder now -- before it's too late.    Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item