The Presidential race has finally shifted to foreign policy and the three candidates Senators Obama, McCain, and Clinton are eager to burnish their credentials. Words, deeds, and solutions, or a combination thereof, are their mantras. Is this much ado about nothing or are there fundamental differences in their perspectives and policies?
Herein lies the kernel. Let's consider Senator Obama's claim and experience. Sound judgment, as displayed by his firm opposition to the Iraq war, is the fulcrum of his appeal for change in foreign policy and an unconventional approach to national security. His service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, life experience, and his "dignity doctrine" are arrows in his quiver, as are his expository skills.
For his part, Senator McCain's exemplary military service and steely endurance of incarceration in Vietnam, in addition to over two decades in the US Senate, underscore his penchant for realpolitik.
Senator Clinton cites her global travel as First Lady, international diplomatic initiatives, and experience as a two-time senator as examples for her assertion that she is well waxed on foreign policy and national security.
Going beyond these assertions, exaggerated in some instances, it is useful to identify fundamental requisites for conducting foreign policy competently. Insightful analysis of foreign policy issues is critical but insufficient to claim expertise.
Chas Freeman, a distinguished former career US ambassador, points out diplomacy is really applied social science that requires deep knowledge of historical antecedents and foreign societies, structures, publics and their aspirations. Diplomats seek common ground and share their perspectives with statesmen who engage their counterparts in the quest for mutually beneficial state of relations.
Realization that countries act in their perceived interests helps in understanding potential conflict and options. Edward Peck, former US ambassador and our last Chief of Mission to Iraq before the war, has underscored repeatedly what has happened when we are muddled in our approach.
Power, knowledge, and empathy are key ingredients of diplomatic discourse which occurs during both war and peace. Since international relations is not a zero-sum enterprise, engagement and dialogue are critical in order to avert war. However, the absence of war is not stability. Statesmen understand this and are able to discern, intuitively or rationally, motives of their interlocutors and select options wisely. Claiming to see into the soul of a leader makes headlines but sometimes falls flat in the face of subsequent evidence.
In recent days much has been reported of Senator Hillary Clinton's artful dodging of sniper fire during her 1996 visit to US military base in Tuzla, Bosnia. As a member of the team of diplomats in the Office of the High Representative implementing the Dayton Peace Accords in the Tuzla region, I do not recall such attacks nor did I read or hear of her claim in any official dispatch.
Of course the situation was tense even though the warring factions had reduced hostilities and were showing early signs of willingness to come to the table. It was on April 3, 1996 that I attended the meetings in Tuzla between then Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and American businessmen, and former warring leaders before the fateful flight to Dubrovnik.
After thirty years of practicing diplomacy in six geographic areas and teaching foreign policy, I am convinced that in the 21st century the US needs a leader who can build on earlier sacrifices, instill trust, and see beyond the horizon. It is important to engage people's imagination rather than impose solutions based on narrowly defined deeds and prescriptions.
Senator McCain's recent gaffes in Jordan on Iraq and Iran revealed a cognitive lapse, and even worse a potentially serious misunderstanding of the dynamics on the ground in the troublesome Middle East.
This new era demands far more than "business as usual".
By all accounts, Senator Barack Obama embodies the qualities that can restore America's credibility and stature in the world at this critical juncture in history. His challenge of conventional wisdom mirrors the pragmatism of JFK and Ronald Reagan, and the empathy and magnetism of Bill Clinton.
It makes good sense to abandon sophistry, dissembling, and hyperbole for earnestness, transparency, and pragmatism Obama style. Missing this opportunity would be unfortunate for the US and the international community.
No comments:
Post a Comment