The United States as a World Leader Remarks by Richard H. Stanley President, The Stanley Foundation Presented at the Thirty-Seventh Strategy for Peace Conference Airlie Center, Warrenton, Virginia October 24, 1996 The Stanley Foundation
The United States as a World Leader by Richard H. Stanley, President, The Stanley Foundation US foreign policy development has never been easy. But it has become even more challenging in recent years as globalization and technological advances profoundly alter the way nations and peoples communicate and interact with one another politically, economically, and socially. In this changed global environment, the United States is better placed than any other nation to exercise genuine world leadership. With the ending of the East- West divide which dominated international politics for most of the last half century, this country emerged as the sole remaining superpower. Much of the world has now embraced and affirmed values consistent with American ideals including promoting democracy, developing market economies, protecting human rights, and preserving our earth s environment. And yet our nation is ambivalent and conflicted about global responsibilities about what our world role should be. We seem to have no clear and consistent pattern of engagement. At times the United States 1
has taken the lead in collaborative efforts. At times we have acted unilaterally, turning our backs on opportunities to strengthen relationships with others to achieve consensus and burden-sharing. We have also turned inward, away from world involvement. As a result, the United States is increasingly viewed, even by friends and allies, as unpredictable, unreliable, and frequently uninterested in international cooperation. To its severest critics, the United States is the United Nations leading deadbeat, guilty of global gangsterism, and lacking principle and continuity in dealings with its allies as well as with the rest of the world. Why this state of affairs? It exists because there is no consensus in this country on what our world role should be. We are internally conflicted. At the risk of over simplification, at least three different philosophies on global involvement are competing for support and adherence. Alarmed by the pace of change and the negative and threatening aspects of globalization, some would seek to insulate the United States from external involvement or influence. Of late, a latent American tendency toward isolationism has manifested itself by vigorous calls to tighten borders against immigrants; to raise or at least not lower barriers to trade with and investment in the United States; to greatly reduce, even eliminate, US foreign aid to developing countries; and to resist deploying US troops in international peacekeeping missions. Some have even 2
suggested that the United States withdraw altogether from the United Nations. Today s advocates of what cannot be labeled as anything but neoisolationism give little priority to events outside our borders and seek to minimize US foreign entanglements. Others prefer that the United States, as the sole superpower, remain globally engaged but wield its power unilaterally, guided exclusively by a determination of US gain or loss. They contend that unilateralism is the most effective and flexible way to interact with the world. This means, in essence, that the United States should avoid long-term international commitments which might constrain future US responses to international events. Little energy or effort should be applied toward strengthening international institutions or building global collaborative consensus. US involvement should be decided on a case-by-case basis, little influenced by our allies concerns and interests. The US military action to punish Iraq for its incursion into the Kurdish enclave is a recent example. The UN Security Council and US allies alike greeted this military action with little support a marked change from five years ago when the US-led coalition forces liberated Kuwait. Our allies have also widely condemned the passage earlier this year of the Helms-Burton Act. This legislation, enacted in wake of the downing of two US civilian aircraft by Cuba, allows lawsuits in our courts against foreign nationals who invest in American property seized by the Castro 3
government. Its objective is to punish Cuba, but it has invited angry threats of retaliation from some of our most important trading partners. Additionally, we have been criticized by our allies for applying unilateral economic sanctions against Iran. Unilateral strategies give this country enormous policy flexibility, but often jeopardize our relationships with friends, allies, and others. The third approach is, of course, multilateral engagement. This approach envisions, on its most fundamental level, that nations can and should work together to find global solutions to global problems. It calls for continuing US leadership and engagement with other nations to support, change, or strengthen appropriate global institutions; to respect and enforce international law; and to create a stable and democratic environment for international commerce. Its premise is that collaborative multilateral solutions will, in the long run, better serve US national interests, ease the burden on US resources, enhance global stability, and ultimately prove more durable. Since the United States is ambivalent about its global role and, hence, unable to articulate its foreign policy goals, our policies and actions have, from time to time, reflected each of these approaches to dealing with the world. We have flip-flopped on philosophy and, hence, on policy. As long as competing philosophies grip our foreign policy, the United States will be unable to conduct its foreign relations 4
with any degree of consistency. And this will continue to erode effective leadership. We desperately need an open, broadly based national dialogue on the United States role in the world, a dialogue in which general principles and strategies of US foreign policy are identified and discussed. During the Cold War we benefited from a widely accepted bipartisan foreign policy that survived changes in political leadership. Now, without a clear outside threat, consensus on any durable organizing philosophy or strategy is more difficult and will be less specific. Yet, without it, the United States will continue problem solving on an ad hoc, short-term basis. Agreeing on principles and strategies for the United States world role will not be easy. One reason is that the US political environment has not been conducive to considered discussion of US foreign policy for some time. When foreign policy is discussed in an election year, demogogery often exacerbates the problem. When campaigns are waged with sound bites and when positions are taken on the basis of the latest poll, long-term thinking is sacrificed. The result is a political process dominated not by statesmen but by politicians who are, perhaps deservedly, held in low esteem and regarded as lacking in conviction other than the desire for their own political survival. This sorry state of affairs affects not only foreign policy but every aspect of governance. As a consequence, the citizenry is increasingly disenchanted, ready to look beyond national govern- 5
ments for solutions, and turning their interests and energies toward a robust emerging group of nonstate entities. The political landscape is also clouded by the end of the Cold War which has taken the lid off the pressure cooker, allowing the emergence of long-simmering intrastate conflicts and tribalism. There is now more instability in many parts of the world, not less. And yet neither the international community nor the United States can be the guarantor of peace in all parts of the world. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there is no longer a defined US foreign policy community whose opinions are accepted by the rest of the country. Instead there are growing numbers of nonstate actors on the foreign policy stage, each reacting to events with its own particular ethnic, political, economic, or regional perspective. These new actors each with their own international agendas are increasingly involved, not only in influencing US foreign policy but actually in making that policy. Never before has US business been more engaged internationally. NGOs are increasingly working across national boundaries. The women s movement, traditionally dominated by Western women, has broadened its base by reaching out to, and learning from, women of the Third World. The US labor movement has become much more attuned to the treatment of workers abroad and the economic and political impact of this on the US labor market. 6
State and local governments have more foreign trade offices and missions than the US federal government and are forming numerous regional transnational groups for trade, educational, and cultural activities. This profusion of involvement results in conflicting demands and differing priorities that complicate US foreign policy, necessitating that it be broadly based in American society. The fate of President Reagan s constructive engagement policy toward the South African government provides an excellent example of the ability of nonstate actors to determine foreign policy. Opposition to apartheid and to the US policy of constructive engagement by African- American groups through a strategy of business, state and local economic isolation, and divestiture involved a much broader cross section of Americans. US policy was challenged and, in the end, was changed. The US government ultimately relented and joined what had already become our foreign policy toward South Africa. In addition to increased political instability abroad, political dogmatism at home, and the ever growing number of participants in foreign policy, the global nature of today s problems also complicates policymaking. The survival issues of the future fighting poverty, preserving our environment, stabilizing population, and preventing large migrations present exceedingly difficult challenges. These are global problems in need of truly global 7
solutions. Their management is beyond the competence of any unilateral national policy and demands durable multilateral collaboration. How should the United States define its global role and strategy? Our people and society are far too involved globally for neoisolation to be an acceptable course. While unilateralist gunboat diplomacy and bullying may be effective in the short run on particular issues, such tactics undermine relationships with our friends and allies, and ultimately undercut US ability to be a world leader. Although the United States may be the sole remaining military superpower, this will not resolve the many international social, economic, and political problems whose solutions are not military and cannot be achieved unilaterally. More often than not, workable solutions will require consensus-building and economic burden-sharing with other nations. I am firmly convinced that, in the long term, US interests will best be served through genuine multilateral engagement coupled with strong US leadership. Leadership is not stating a policy and pressuring adherence or acting first and demanding acceptance or acquiescence later; it is developing a policy through consultation and persuasion. It is a patient building of relationships with others, being reliable and consistent, and working to build and maintain needed international institutions. Only through multilateral engagement will the United States credi- 8
bly build the global support and constituency needed to work through pressing global problems. Multilateral engagement offers the best chance of a stable and predictable world climate for peace, security, freedom, and justice. The world will not wait for the United States to sort out its world role. Events will continue to unfold, demanding our immediate attention. We need to confront issues already before us. As we deal with them, it will be helpful for us to take into consideration the philosophies embedded in alternative policy options neoisolationism, unilateralism, or multilateralism. And I suspect that we will find that the optimal policies in each area will require multilateral engagement. In closing, let me again emphasize my concern that the United States is abdicating this unprecedented opportunity to assume a much greater positive leadership role in the world. I remain convinced that with a genuine multilateral commitment, the United States could be first among nations in shaping solutions to those problems that are truly global in nature. But the United States must first develop a better consensus on principles and strategies shaping that leadership, as well as a better understanding of the broader set of interests that now define America. Defining and developing commitments to the optimal US global role for today and the future is the real challenge, requiring continuing and considered dialogue among a broad cross section of American society. 9
These remarks were delivered at the opening of the Stanley Foundation s thirty-seventh Strategy for Peace Conference. Discussion groups at the conference were: Human Rights: Bridging the Communities The Persian Gulf: Challenges for a New Administration Rebuilding Russia: The Next Phase Weapons of Mass Destruction: Are the Nonproliferation Regimes Falling Behind? Reports summarizing these discussions are available from the foundation. 10
The Stanley Foundation The Stanley Foundation is a private operating foundation that conducts varied programs and activities designed to provoke thought and encourage dialogue on world affairs and directed toward achieving a secure peace with freedom and justice. Programs engage policymakers, opinion leaders, and citizens interested in solving problems and finding opportunities that present themselves in an increasingly interdependent world. Areas of particular interest are: global peace and security, US international relations, sustainable development, human rights, the United Nations, and the expansion of policy deliberations to include wider public representation. Activities include: Round-table, off-the-record conferences and meetings for policymakers and other experts. Congressional programs. Citizen programs for educators, young people, churches, professional associations, civic groups, and educational institutions. These activities are often held in collaboration with other nonprofit organizations. Production of Common Ground, a weekly public radio program on world affairs. Publication of the monthly magazine World Press Review. Publication of conference reports. The Stanley Foundation welcomes gifts from supportive friends. The foundation is not a grantmaking institution. The Stanley Foundation 216 Sycamore Street, Suite 500 Muscatine, IA 52761-3831 USA Telephone: (319) 264-1500 Fax: (319) 264-0864 E-mail: info@stanleyfdn.org