Guest
02-21-2009, 01:04 AM
There's currently a flap because Secretary of State Clinton has said she will not attempt to integrate discussions of human rights issues in more important negotiations on other issues with the Chinese. Human rights advocates are furious over her change in position since she was First Lady. She said, "We both know one another's positions on subjects like human rights and there's little chance that either of us will change our positions". She went on to say that we can't let issues where we know we disagree interfere with seeking mutually acceptable agreements on other important issues facing both countries.
Should we base our foreign policy on restricting our diplomatic relationships to countries that share all of our political, economic and cultural beliefs? Or should we "pick and choose" the bases of our foreign relations with various countries? Can we have sound relationships with countries which diametrically oppose our beliefs with regard to freedom or human rights?
I believe that we can--and should. I believe that our primary interest in conducting diplomacy should be in the long-term well-being of the U.S. Trying to use our leverage to encourage changes in cultural or political issues within those countries with whom we maintain diplomatic relationships should always be secondary to reaching agreements that assure the well-being of Americans.
It's not that I think human rights to be unimportant--it's just that there are other national objectives that might be more important. I think our national foreign policy has to be based on far more substantive issues--assuring the U.S. a supply of oil at reasonable prices, our national security, assuring peace in our homeland and in our hemisphere, maintaining cooperative and dependable trading partners, assuring that our diplomatic partners act peacefully with their regional neighbors, extinguish the sources of terrorism, etc.
Of course, our national agenda should identify things that are important within our culture--human and women's rights, freedom, a strong preference for a democratic form of government, the rule of law, religious freedom, etc.
But in practical terms, many of the countries with whom we might desire to have diplomatic relationships for strategic or economic reasons might not practice or even agree with our values on what I've called our "cultural" objectives. Should we make the establishment of solid diplomatic relationships with other countries conditional on a satisfactory achievement of all of our list of national objectives? Or should we be willing to give up on some to achieve those we feel are more important--cut the best deal we can and then try to improve it over time?
Insisting that we get everything "our way" is not a practical basis for conducting foreign policy. The U.S. is no longer the country in the world that everyone has to have relationships with. America's influence in the world is more on the wane than the rise and we need to be conscious of that. Venezuala and China can mutually accomplish many of their objectives without the U.S. at all. Russia is taking actions to strengthen its diplomatic position with other countries that lack natural resources--and they are willing to sacrifice their relations with the U.S. to do so. So far, our strong diplomatic partner India has resisted military response to insults from it's bitter enemy, Pakistan. How should we deal with both to accomplish our national objectives for that region? If we can get North Korea or Iran to agree with nuclear non-proliferation, should we refuse to conduct diplomacy with them because neither will agree to a democratic form of government or the practice of a rule of law? Should we completely reject initiating foreign relations with oil-rich Venezuela because it is run by a dictator? Should we reject relations with China because of their human rights policies? If we could assure that terrorist training bases were closed and achieve peace in the Pakistan-Afghanistan-India region by conducting diplomacy with the Taliban (which really is the "government" in western Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan moreso than either Islamabad or Kabul) because of their egregious policies relative on women's rights and religious freedom, should we reject such a relationship? Or should we establish an important diplomatic toehold with such partners and try to build from there?
Think about the history. Did the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria (all diplomatic "friends" at the time) hesitate to block the sale of oil to the U.S. when we agreed to support Israel during the Yom Kippur War? Remember the long lines at gas stations that resulted from the boycott by our "good trading partners"? They used what they knew the U.S. needed most to influence our foreign policy. They may do it again. Should we hesitate to act similarly?
No, I think a country--any country--has to identify those factors which are most important to them and their people and conduct foreign relations based primarily on the achievement of those objectives. That's not to say that a country shouldn't continue to encourage its diplomatic partners to change their ways on certain issues on which we can't reach an initial agreement. We could continue to incourage Hugo Chavez to consider movement towards democracy, but at the same time agree that we can be mutually agreeable oil trading partners. We could continue to trade with China and encourage them to consider higher standards on human rights and environmental issues. Should we establish relations with Iran if they would agree to nuclear non-proliferation and then use other diplomatic or economic "tools" to influence their acceptance of many of our cultural standards? If we could achieve true peace in the Middle East, would we be willing to distance ourselves somewhat from Israel?
We're the largest economy, lead the world in many areas of technology, we're the richest and the largest importer of goods in the world. We also have by far the strongest military. And we are the most generous people on the planet. We need to use those things to influence other countries in their relations with us. No country has any real "friends" in foreign policy. Every country has diplomatic or economic partners who are more or less allied in their mutual objectives. But in the end, everyone knows that each country must finally act only in its own best interests and those of its people.
Think of our national policy regarding Cuba. Let's be realistic, our refusal to have relations with Cuba is based almost entirely on domestic political posturing and an extremely strong Cuban-American lobby. Our politicians are far more interested in winning the Cuban-American vote and getting their generous contributions than they are in the well-being of the Cuban people. But what could we do to most quickly influence Cuba to leave the economic 19th century, to provide better living conditions for its residents, to quickly undermine the influence of the Castro regime, to give the U.S. access to Cuba's tremendous natural resources? Simply open our borders to them and permit free and open trading. Most regional experts who don't have an ax to grind over the "Castro history" agree that within a very short time U.S. relations with Cuba would very much resemble our relationship with Puerto Rico. Most Cubans have family both in the U.S. as well as in Cuba. They call back and forth using cell phones. Cubans can't hear Radio Free Cuba because it's electronically jammed. But they listen to Miami radio stations. The last thing the Castro government wants is for Cubans to have access to U.S. dollars and see firsthand the U.S. lifestyle. They know that once there is a flow of foreign trade and travel, their ability to restrict or convince their residents that America is the evil empire would be numbered in months if not the phases of the moon.
What I'm saying is that our government must thoroughly think through what our national foreign policy objectives are and prioritize them. The lists might be substantially different from country to country. The realistic mutually achievable objectives might be substantially different from one country to another. Our objectives for some countries might be broad and for others very narrow, some very strategic and others very practical. Take Bolivia, as an example. Bolivia is a socialistic country that has 50% of the world's supply of lithium, used in all modern batteries. The U.S. has 3% of the world's supply, but uses about 75% of the lithium-ion batteries produced in the world. That's an example of of country where we have a very narrow foreign relations objective. We've done nothing to establish relations with Bolivia. But Japan and China are investing heavily in the Bolivian economy and have contracted to buy huge amounts of their lithium. We must establish and conduct our foreign policy with the interest of Americans first and foremost. We are no longer the moral authority of the rest of the world--maybe we never were. We are also no longer a self-sufficent economy. If in such a situation we can accomplish our objectives while simultaneously encouraging our diplomatic partners to adopt some of our cultural values in the process, so much the better. But that can't be the primary condition on which we conduct our foreign policy.
Comments?
Should we base our foreign policy on restricting our diplomatic relationships to countries that share all of our political, economic and cultural beliefs? Or should we "pick and choose" the bases of our foreign relations with various countries? Can we have sound relationships with countries which diametrically oppose our beliefs with regard to freedom or human rights?
I believe that we can--and should. I believe that our primary interest in conducting diplomacy should be in the long-term well-being of the U.S. Trying to use our leverage to encourage changes in cultural or political issues within those countries with whom we maintain diplomatic relationships should always be secondary to reaching agreements that assure the well-being of Americans.
It's not that I think human rights to be unimportant--it's just that there are other national objectives that might be more important. I think our national foreign policy has to be based on far more substantive issues--assuring the U.S. a supply of oil at reasonable prices, our national security, assuring peace in our homeland and in our hemisphere, maintaining cooperative and dependable trading partners, assuring that our diplomatic partners act peacefully with their regional neighbors, extinguish the sources of terrorism, etc.
Of course, our national agenda should identify things that are important within our culture--human and women's rights, freedom, a strong preference for a democratic form of government, the rule of law, religious freedom, etc.
But in practical terms, many of the countries with whom we might desire to have diplomatic relationships for strategic or economic reasons might not practice or even agree with our values on what I've called our "cultural" objectives. Should we make the establishment of solid diplomatic relationships with other countries conditional on a satisfactory achievement of all of our list of national objectives? Or should we be willing to give up on some to achieve those we feel are more important--cut the best deal we can and then try to improve it over time?
Insisting that we get everything "our way" is not a practical basis for conducting foreign policy. The U.S. is no longer the country in the world that everyone has to have relationships with. America's influence in the world is more on the wane than the rise and we need to be conscious of that. Venezuala and China can mutually accomplish many of their objectives without the U.S. at all. Russia is taking actions to strengthen its diplomatic position with other countries that lack natural resources--and they are willing to sacrifice their relations with the U.S. to do so. So far, our strong diplomatic partner India has resisted military response to insults from it's bitter enemy, Pakistan. How should we deal with both to accomplish our national objectives for that region? If we can get North Korea or Iran to agree with nuclear non-proliferation, should we refuse to conduct diplomacy with them because neither will agree to a democratic form of government or the practice of a rule of law? Should we completely reject initiating foreign relations with oil-rich Venezuela because it is run by a dictator? Should we reject relations with China because of their human rights policies? If we could assure that terrorist training bases were closed and achieve peace in the Pakistan-Afghanistan-India region by conducting diplomacy with the Taliban (which really is the "government" in western Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan moreso than either Islamabad or Kabul) because of their egregious policies relative on women's rights and religious freedom, should we reject such a relationship? Or should we establish an important diplomatic toehold with such partners and try to build from there?
Think about the history. Did the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria (all diplomatic "friends" at the time) hesitate to block the sale of oil to the U.S. when we agreed to support Israel during the Yom Kippur War? Remember the long lines at gas stations that resulted from the boycott by our "good trading partners"? They used what they knew the U.S. needed most to influence our foreign policy. They may do it again. Should we hesitate to act similarly?
No, I think a country--any country--has to identify those factors which are most important to them and their people and conduct foreign relations based primarily on the achievement of those objectives. That's not to say that a country shouldn't continue to encourage its diplomatic partners to change their ways on certain issues on which we can't reach an initial agreement. We could continue to incourage Hugo Chavez to consider movement towards democracy, but at the same time agree that we can be mutually agreeable oil trading partners. We could continue to trade with China and encourage them to consider higher standards on human rights and environmental issues. Should we establish relations with Iran if they would agree to nuclear non-proliferation and then use other diplomatic or economic "tools" to influence their acceptance of many of our cultural standards? If we could achieve true peace in the Middle East, would we be willing to distance ourselves somewhat from Israel?
We're the largest economy, lead the world in many areas of technology, we're the richest and the largest importer of goods in the world. We also have by far the strongest military. And we are the most generous people on the planet. We need to use those things to influence other countries in their relations with us. No country has any real "friends" in foreign policy. Every country has diplomatic or economic partners who are more or less allied in their mutual objectives. But in the end, everyone knows that each country must finally act only in its own best interests and those of its people.
Think of our national policy regarding Cuba. Let's be realistic, our refusal to have relations with Cuba is based almost entirely on domestic political posturing and an extremely strong Cuban-American lobby. Our politicians are far more interested in winning the Cuban-American vote and getting their generous contributions than they are in the well-being of the Cuban people. But what could we do to most quickly influence Cuba to leave the economic 19th century, to provide better living conditions for its residents, to quickly undermine the influence of the Castro regime, to give the U.S. access to Cuba's tremendous natural resources? Simply open our borders to them and permit free and open trading. Most regional experts who don't have an ax to grind over the "Castro history" agree that within a very short time U.S. relations with Cuba would very much resemble our relationship with Puerto Rico. Most Cubans have family both in the U.S. as well as in Cuba. They call back and forth using cell phones. Cubans can't hear Radio Free Cuba because it's electronically jammed. But they listen to Miami radio stations. The last thing the Castro government wants is for Cubans to have access to U.S. dollars and see firsthand the U.S. lifestyle. They know that once there is a flow of foreign trade and travel, their ability to restrict or convince their residents that America is the evil empire would be numbered in months if not the phases of the moon.
What I'm saying is that our government must thoroughly think through what our national foreign policy objectives are and prioritize them. The lists might be substantially different from country to country. The realistic mutually achievable objectives might be substantially different from one country to another. Our objectives for some countries might be broad and for others very narrow, some very strategic and others very practical. Take Bolivia, as an example. Bolivia is a socialistic country that has 50% of the world's supply of lithium, used in all modern batteries. The U.S. has 3% of the world's supply, but uses about 75% of the lithium-ion batteries produced in the world. That's an example of of country where we have a very narrow foreign relations objective. We've done nothing to establish relations with Bolivia. But Japan and China are investing heavily in the Bolivian economy and have contracted to buy huge amounts of their lithium. We must establish and conduct our foreign policy with the interest of Americans first and foremost. We are no longer the moral authority of the rest of the world--maybe we never were. We are also no longer a self-sufficent economy. If in such a situation we can accomplish our objectives while simultaneously encouraging our diplomatic partners to adopt some of our cultural values in the process, so much the better. But that can't be the primary condition on which we conduct our foreign policy.
Comments?