Successful U.S. Foreign Policy Begins at Home by Richard N. Haass Financial Times 11:48am 2nd Jan, 2004   (Published by the Financial Times, December 22, 2003).    We live in an age defined by contradiction. On the one hand there is the reality of the US, by any yardstick the world's most powerful state. On the other hand there is the reality that the US and its people, for all their power, are vulnerable - arguably more vulnerable than at any time since the height of the cold war.    No single threat compares to the devastation that would result from global nuclear war but terrorism - particularly if it involves weapons of mass destruction - has the potential to cause substantial damage.    Anyone doubting this need only add up the human and financial costs of the attacks on the US on September 11 2001, including the billions of dollars since devoted to defence, intelligence and homeland security measures.    But today's threats go beyond terrorism. They include viruses (biological and computer), drugs, a warming planet and protectionism. What these phenomena have in common is that they are by-products of globalisation.    Adding to the contradictions of the age is a third reality: great dependence. No single country, no matter how powerful, can on its own prevent the spread of dangerous technologies, frustrate terrorists, insulate itself from disease or maintain the integrity of a world trading system. To meet these challenges, the US needs to get others to agree to work for the same ends.    The good news is that much of what the US seeks in the world is sought by other big powers. A considerable consensus exists that sovereignty does not entitle a government to commit genocide against its own people, and that a government that supports terrorism opens itself to the same sanctions as the terrorists themselves. And even if feeling against the spread of nuclear weapons is not as robust as the US would like, there are signs of considerable international agreement that neither Iran nor North Korea ought to be allowed to join the nuclear club.    But such consensus cannot be forced. The danger for the foreseeable future is less that other powers will form some anti-American axis than that they will fail to co-operate with the US against global challenges.    Iraq, where the US finds itself essentially on its own with little financial and even less military help from third parties, is a case in point. If this pattern became the norm, the US would find itself increasingly unsuccessful in its efforts to promote order in the world - and increasingly impoverished by the mostly unilateral effort to do so.    What will it take, then, for the US 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? Part of the answer is consultation - genuine consultation, not simply informing others of decisions already reached.    This implies a willingness to compromise not on fundamentals but on matters of detail and implementation. Insisting that Iraq meet its inter-national obligations was one thing; insisting that military action began when it did was quite another.    The sort of leadership that will persuade others to follow will also require a willingness to accept constraints. George W. Bush, president, signalled as much when he rescinded limits on steel imports, thereby underscoring US support for World Trade Organisation rules.    A third component of a foreign policy that stands a good chance of generating international backing is diplomacy. That means putting forward viable alternatives when the US goes against the grain - the disputes over Kyoto and the International Criminal Court come to mind here. It also means being willing to minimise the scale of inevitable disputes. It is for this more than anything else that the recent decision to bar selected countries from bidding on certain projects in Iraq is ill-advised.    Getting others to work with us has another advantage. Taking on the world's challenges requires substantial human, military and financial resources. The US is thinly stretched from fighting three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism) simultaneously. It needs others to share the burden if it is not to be overwhelmed.    None of the above should be read as an argument that all dependence is inevitable or desirable. Some of what limits America's freedom of action is unwise and self-generated. Here I speak of the US's enormous thirst for imported oil and gas, a dependence that no amount of supply diversification can offset. What makes it worse is that this need to import energy increases the US current account deficit which, together with the soaring fiscal deficit, leaves the economy increasingly at the mercy of large holders of dollars. It is only a matter of time before pressure grows for the US Federal Reserve Bank to raise interest rates lest governments and people stop financing US debt.    Such energy and economic dependence inevitably weakens US foreign policy. The US needs an energy policy worthy of the name, one that discourages wanton consumption. And it needs to rethink how much tax-cutting and discretionary domestic spending it can afford, given the need for massive spending on defence, intelligence, foreign aid and homeland security. Now, as always, a successful foreign policy must begin at home.    (The writer, former head of policy planning at the State Department, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations).
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item