August 18, 2005
SEE, W REALLY CAN CHANGE REALITY (via Harry Eagar)
Get Real (GIDEON ROSE, 8/18/05, NY Times)
For more than half a century, overenthusiastic idealists of one variety or another have gotten themselves and the country into trouble abroad and had to be bailed out by prudent successors brought in to clean up the mess. When the crisis passes, however, the realists' message about the need to act carefully in a fallen world ends up clashing with Americans' loftier impulses. The result is a tedious cycle that plays itself out again and again. [...]Seen in proper perspective, in other words, the Bush administration's signature efforts represent not some durable, world-historical shift in America's approach to foreign policy but merely one more failed idealistic attempt to escape the difficult trade-offs and unpleasant compromises that international politics inevitably demand - even from the strongest power since Rome. Just as they have so many times before, the realists have come in after an election to offer some adult supervision and tidy up the joint. This time it's simply happened under the nose of a victorious incumbent rather than his opponent (which may account for the failure to change the rhetoric along with the policy).
BEING fully American rather than devotees of classic European realpolitik, the realists-today represented most prominently by Ms. Rice and her team at the State Department-offer not different goals but a calmer and more measured path toward the same ones. They still believe in American power and the global spread of liberal democratic capitalism. But they seek legitimate authority rather than mere material dominance, favor cost-benefit analyses rather than ideological litmus tests, and prize good results over good intentions.
it's funny enough that Mr. Rose declares the triumph of Realism at a time when, just to pick some examples off the top of my head, the following are occurring:
* Ariel Sharon is creating a Palestinian state
* The Iraqis are finishing a constitution
* The Indonesians cut an autonomy deal with Aceh
* The Egyptians have started their first presidential election campaign
* The new king of Saudi Arabia has released political prisoners
* An American businessman has returned to Haiti to run for president
* We're stepping up the pressure on Belarus to liberalize
* Japan is preparing to change its constitution so it can arm against China
* The Sudanese smoothly replaced John Garang after his tragic death
* The North Koreans are offering to give up their nuclear program if we just stop being mean to them
* Afghanistan has just begin a parliamentary election campaign
* Taiwan is deploying cruise missiles pointed at China
* Feel free to add your own
But even funnier is that he's reduced to declaring Condi Rice a Realist in order to make his case.
The basic idea of Realism is quite simple: Stability Uber Alles. The Realists prefer a regime that can keep its own people quiet and get along with its neighbors, no matter how repressive that regime may be. However, as the list above demonstrates, there is almost nowhere in the world that we are willing to accept such tyranny in exchange for stability. Meanwhile, even as regards the few where we're willing to accept it for more than a brief period of convenience -- perhaps only Pakistan and China at this time -- we're forging entirely new strategic alliances so as to be in a position to tackle them militarily when the time comes. Ms Rice is in the thick of all this--travelling to Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, India, etc.
To call this a return to Realism is to admit defeat at the hands of American idealism.
Posted by Orrin Judd at August 18, 2005 10:00 PMEven funnier, Condi Rice coming in to replace Colin Powell is the triumph of the realists.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 18, 2005 10:54 PMFor more than half a century, overenthusiastic idealists of one variety or another have gotten themselves and the country into trouble abroad and had to be bailed out by prudent successors brought in to clean up the mess.
Strange, that's just what I think Bush is doing regarding Clinton's foreign policy....
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 18, 2005 11:02 PMGideon Rose is apparently trapped alongside Henry Kissinger in some bizarre 70s time warp, completely unaware that the Soviet Union is no more, and that its successor state is a merely regional power with no particular desire (or ability) to pick a fight with the U.S.
Thus, "the difficult trade-offs and unpleasant compromises that international politics inevitably demand" are now INTERNAL to American politics and culture.
Our only constraints are self-imposed - what we are willing to do to others, what we are willing to sacrifice to achieve such.
Just as they have so many times before, the realists have come in after an election to offer some adult supervision and tidy up the joint. This time it's simply happened under the nose of a victorious incumbent rather than his opponent...
sigh
More "G. Bush is a moron" from someone who cannot believe that a tongue-twisted "cowboy", who can't dependably articulate his thoughts in public, is really RUNNING THE WORLD !!
(I mean, come on... Bush ?!?)
My physics adviser asked my opinion of this. Here is what I told him:
As for Rose, I'd quarrel with the historical background of several parts of his argument, especially Korea.
Truman was hardly enmired in S. Korea because of a quixotic interference in Korean democracy. The reverse, in fact.
Even apart from the speech that allegedly placed S. Korea out the U.S. zone of interest, in 1950 the RoK had nothing but a weakly armed constabulary of 8 understrength divisions. I think it likely that if the U.S. had helped RoK to 2 or 3 combat capable army divisions, with 5 or 6 prepared airfields (even if the air squadrons remained in Japan or Guam pending hostilities), then Stalin might not have thought he could pick up S. Korea on the cheap.
I disagree with the realists. We had plenty of those in the '30s and look where it got us.
The idea of exporting western democracy was not, in itself, a bad one. The stupidity came in thinking that regimes like Iran or S. Vietnam were interested in western democracy. Of course trying to lead power-hungry kleptocrats to the springs of democracy and make them drink failed. It worked OK in Japan, India (despite its generally antiAmerican governments), Lebanon (for a while), Italy, places where there was some experience and interest in popular selfgovernment.
A pox on both their houses.
I have no idea what Rose is thinking about when he says Rice has been brilliant as secretary of state. She sold out the South Sudan and then allowed the U.S. to be humiliated into the bargain. What successes has she had with N. Korea, Iran, anybody?
Nor do I buy the notion that hardheaded realists came in over and over to clean up messes made by the fatheads. The messes were real enough, but just exactly how much cleaning up was done in Russia, Iran or, now, Iraq?
Hardheaded realism would be to listen to Arab Muslim political scientists with a good record over the past 20 years who say that Arabs have no interest in democracy and then craft a policy accordingly. Like Bassam Tibi.
I think they're practically all crazy. Besides, when it comes to international policy, I think Clausewitz had it right; allies are more trouble than they're worth at the best of times and they desert you when you need them.
South Korea, South Vietnam and Iran all opted for democracy, though we sold out South Vietnam before they could secure one.
We got the Southern Sudan a deal for independence if it wants it--though that had little to do with Ms Rice. The North Koreans offered to nix their nuke program if we stop threatening them--though they're afraid of W, not Condi. The Islamic world is liberalizing and democratizing rapidly. Tibi's complaint is with Islamic fundamentalism. He thinks his own Sufi Islam, like that of Stephen Schwartz, perfectly compatible with liberalism.
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2005 12:43 AM"South Korea, South Vietnam and Iran all opted for democracy"
What are we talking about with regard to Iran?
Posted by: Glaivester at August 19, 2005 2:02 PMContra Harry, Iran is and chose to be a democracy.
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2005 2:06 PMWell, yes, if liberty is considered only an option. Orrin is buying into the Harry Lee version of democracy.
Like his Christianity, his democracy is so idiosyncratic that few would recognize it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 19, 2005 4:59 PMDemocracy isn't necessary for liberty and liberty is never guaranteed by democracy.
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2005 5:52 PMAlthough liberty is delivered by democracy far more often than by any other kind of system, which is why it's so popular among advanced nations.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 19, 2005 7:27 PMLess often--the many are seldom willing to grant full rights to the few. But genuine mixed republics are rather rare.
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2005 7:46 PM