http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...details&id=987
September 21, 2001
Rethinking a Too-Narrow Foreign Policy
by John Clark
During its first 233 days, the Bush Administration seemed to abdicate America’s role as global leader for rea-sons that were hardly noble or serious. It now has a rare opportunity to recreate its bobbled foreign policy.
Republicans spent much of the 1990s criticizing the Clinton Administration for overextending America’s mili-tary forces around the world. Vital American interests were being neglected, it was said, as US troops were sent to keep peace in the Balkans or to create order in the chaos of Haiti.
During its first months in office, the Bush Administration seemed eager to “go it alone.” Its number one prior-ity was to erect a National Missile Defense that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for three decades the foundation for nuclear arms control. Our allies in Europe and Asia that while protecting America, missile defense would diminish the security of the world as a whole. Rivals such as China and Russia con-demned the plan as proof that an arrogant America would do anything to cement its military dominance as the sole superpower.
More troubling than its concern only with America’s national interests at the expense of those of our allies or of the planet was the Bush Administration’s apparent willingness to allow special interests in the US to dictate its foreign policy. It scuttled seven years of negotiations to establish enforcement measures to the 1972 Bio-logical Weapons Convention, abandoning efforts to add teeth because they “would put national security and confidential business information at risk.” In other words, critics said, the Administration sacrificed the pre-vention of germ warfare and bio-terrorism to protect the patents and profits of American biotechnology corporations.
In July, the Bush Administration watered down proposals to limit illegal international trafficking in light weapons by threatening to withdraw from the United Nations Conference on Small Arms. The reason: it might interfere with Americans’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Rather than address a problem that contrib-utes to a thousand deaths per day around the world, claimed critics, the Administration chose to placate the National Rifle Association.
Everything changed last Tuesday. The Administration’s immediate response was to assemble a broad anti-terrorism coalition whose purpose would go beyond apprehending those responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. The US-led effort would uproot other terrorist organizations across the globe and pun-ish the countries that harbor and promote terrorism.
The Bush Administration thus accepts an immense responsibility that will force it to rethink and reverse its previous approaches to foreign policy. It will have to heed the demands and fears of its coalition partners. This requires wisdom and caution since many of our bedfellows define “terrorism” differently than we do. We should not refrain from criticizing the Russians’ brutal abuse of Chechnya, even though these inhumane poli-cies are in the name of combating terrorism.
America’s anti-terrorism policy must be based on more than vengeance, more than protecting ourselves from future attacks. Some of the potential partners in the Muslim world risk terrorist attacks and insurrection by extremists at home if they join our coalition. Every country in Europe, in fact, possesses large Muslim minori-ties. But Muslims will not be the only ones to protest if it appears that innocent civilians are being killed only for revenge or, worse, to preserve the Bush Administration’s political credibility.
We may bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, we may capture Osama bin Laden or topple Saddam Hussein or “take out the Taliban.” If at that point America declares victory and walks away, we will leave behind a wasteland of chaos and anarchy that will breed even more terrorism and instability in the future. If we are serious about leading, we commit ourselves to much more difficult peacekeeping and state building than anything in Bosnia or Kosovo.
If they feel they are contributing to a safer world for all, our allies and coalition partners could be willing to sacrifice much. But if we seem to care only about our own narrow national interests, who will support us after the next terrible attack? And if we seem only to seek revenge, another more terrible attack is certain.
A chance for a truly fresh start is a rare and precious thing in foreign policy. Let’s not bungle it, because we won’t get another.
John Clark is the director of the Center for Central European and Eurasian Studies for Hudson Institute.