Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently
wrote an article asserting that the
Republican nominee should challenge President Obama on foreign policy to expose
how weak he actually is on the subject. When I first saw this article my
plan was to make this the first addition to the Election 2012 page of my
blog. However as I read it I couldn't help but formulate a
response to some of Mr. Rove’s assertions and suggestions.
My
Problems with the Article:
American Exceptionalism:
The belief that because the United
States has the biggest economy, strongest military, etc… it is exempt from the
rules and guidelines of international conduct is flawed. Nations should
not roam the world with a ‘because I can’ attitude, taking unilateral action
against the expressed will of the international community. In an
environment where no party has a monopoly on the use of force (and would therefore
be responsible for enforcing law and order) the rules of international conduct
are merely guidelines for determining personal action. This means they
are only as strong and respect each nation holds for them.
With regards to the role of global
policeman that the United States so often plays, this work is both legitimized
and enhanced by partnerships with regional organizations like the African Union
and Arab League. In the case of Libya, NATO military action was
legitimized by the involvement of Arab nations like the U.A.E. In Central
Africa, President Obama sent 100 U.S. troops to Uganda, South Sudan, C.A.R. and
the D.R.C. These soldiers will work with the African Nations to defeat
the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has been raping, murdering, and kidnapping
for over 20 years.
In essence, with great power comes
great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is being humble, saying
thank you, and quietly going about your business of being the best. A
perfect example of this is the rescue of Iranian sailors being held captive by
Somali pirates. In the wake of each rescue the Navy has fed, clothed, and
treated the sailors for any medical needs before quickly returning them to the
Iranian Coast Guard. There were never any attempts to use the sailors as
leverage to influence Iranian nuclear policies, or any other disrespectful
treatment of the sailors. The only publicity these rescues have gotten is
a quick story on the major news outlets and an official Navy report on the
event. By handling these events in this manner the United States
portrayed itself as acting solely in the best interest of the Iranian sailors
and making no attempt to exploit the situation to influence Iranian policy. As
a result the United States gained the moral high ground, and with it, the
support of many countries in opposing Iranian nuclear policies.
As much as I believe American
Exceptionalism is a flawed philosophy, toting it is proven help win the general
election. So Mr. Rove’s advice to the Republican Nominee is
sound.
Iran Didn’t “pose a serious threat”
in 2008:
Why Mr. Rove, was it so foolish for
then Senator Obama to say Iran doesn’t, “pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.”
In 2008 Iran had zero nuclear weapons, and as we can clearly see now, Iran
wasn’t even four years away from developing them. Furthermore the USSR
could have, at any moment, blanketed the entire U.S. with nuclear
missiles. Even if Iran had enough enriched uranium to make a
nuclear warhead, they have no way to get it to the United States. (No,
you can’t simply smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S.) I’ll
conclude this section by saying how foolish it was for the Bush Administration
to think Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States in 2002.
Radical Islamic Terrorism:
Karl Rove begins this section by
asserting that the Republican nominee must make victory over, “radical Islamic
terrorism” the top priority of the nation. He then suggests that
President Obama stops short of this by merely seeking to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and
to isolate those who carry it out.” (pg 20) Mr. Rove is quoting Obama’s May
2010 National Security Strategy. Interestingly after this quote the
National Security Strategy makes a clear distinction that the United States is
not at war with terrorism or Islam, but al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Mr.
Rove does not make a similar distinction.
Another shortcoming of Mr. Rove’s
article is it fails to list development as a tool to counter the spread of
radical terrorism. As this study from RAND finds, “social and economic development policies
can weaken local support for terrorist activities.” (pg x) In impoverished
areas many terrorist organizations offer recruits and their families’ financial
support which cannot be found elsewhere. Good economic development
policies serve as a peaceful and more profitable means for these young men and
women to support a family.
The example offered by the RAND
study is of development projects in the southern Philippines growing asparagus
and bananas. These initiatives offered an economic alternative to
communities which previously supported local terrorist groups. As a result
of these programs communities had high employment rates and were transformed
into peaceful communities.
Such development projects show the
commitment of the government enacting them to the welfare of the program
beneficiaries. This serves to minimize the grievances and contempt which
can cause individuals to view terrorism is a viable response.
Conversely, President Obama’s 2010
National Security Strategy explicitly outlines the role of development
programs, stating, “The Federal
Government will invest in intelligence to understand this threat
[radicalization] and expand community engagement and development programs to
empower local communities.” (pg 19) This policy shows the Obama
Administration has a solid understanding of the root causes of terrorism.
Based on this article the same cannot be said of Mr. Rove.
Osama bin Laden:
Karl Rove closes by predicting
President Obama will repeat, “endlessly” that bin Laden was killed during his
watch so much so that, “some voters will wonder whether the president himself
personally delivered the kill shot.” I’ll restrain myself from starting a
tally of what the President credits to whom and simply refer readers to
President Obama’s May 2nd speech to the Nation announcing that
Osama bin Laden is dead.
NOTE: After writing this piece I found
a response from Jermey Rosner and Stanley Greenberg
to Mr. Rove’s article. To summarize, they also assert that Karl Rove and
Ed Gillespie have poor advice for the republican nominee and that not only do
Americans think Obama is good on foreign policy (An assertion Mr. Rove makes),
but he actually is.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI think you make an interesting but idealistic statement that even though the US is the richest most powerful nation on earth, they should still be bound by a sense of international decorum.
I wonder if Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan asked their fellow nation states if it would be okay if they took things over.
Although I agree that it is a wonderful concept to believe "with great power comes great responsiibility" the reality is that often "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and even governments as well intentioned as ours, can become self obsessed with our rights and priveleges to tell others how to do things.
Yes we should cooperate and respect each others national perspectives, but in reality, the strong often overwhelm others around them because they can. John G.
Are interesting and idealistic mutually exclusive?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your rhetorical question, no, neither of those conquerors nor Rome itself asked other nations if they could take over. Furthermore these figures believed the people the conquered had no rights and were often taken into slavery.
However, since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 when the idea of a sovereign nation state was created, the international community has for the most part operated with respect for the sovereignty of other nations. The notable exceptions of course are Germany and Japan at in WWII and Iraq in 1990. Of course in each of these cases the rest of the world came together to restore the sovereignty of the conquered nations.
The United States doesn't have absolute power. The list of Nations opposed to the U.S. has only grown longer since the Gulf War and Europe - formerly the rich yes man of the United States - is no longer rich or a yes man. Furthermore rising powers like Turkey and Brazil have taken stands against American diplomacy. Both these nations opposed the intervention in Libya on the grounds that it violated the sovereignty of a Nation. All of these factors combine to drastically reduce the soft power of the United States from the early post war years.
American Exceptionalism is the idea that the U.S. has absolute power and that we are not bound by the rules of conduct governing other nations. Based on this definition I believe your third paragraph argues more against the philosophy of American Exceptionalism than my point that America is not exceptional.
Yes the strong will often, or even generally, get their way at the expense of the weak. But what I am arguing here is that such a code of conduct is inappropriate, not that it doesn't exist. Furthermore as the United States declines, or rather, other nations close the gap, we must reconsider how we what global politics to be determined in a world where we no longer hold all the chips.
I'll leave you with a closing example of the world after WWII compared to the world today. In winning WWII the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council cemented themselves are the most powerful nations in the world. Yet today if you look at their annual GDP's, Japan and Germany replace Great Britain and Russia for the top five spots, and the gap between the top five and the rest of the world has closed significantly.
I of course would be happy to argue my point further or respond to any addition questions you would like to raise.
So Thomas, let me explore this point with you further. I think it's an excellent point that since 1648 Nations have made an effort to begin recognizing each other's sovereignty however, the exceptions to this in more recent years abound. Examples. Germany taking over Poland, France, etc... More recently, the USSR invading Afghanistan or Iraq invading Kuwait. My point being that although we would like to wish nation states had respect for each other, human nature is alive and well, where the strong in many cases will take everything they can.
DeleteSo is American (or any other nation's) Exceptionalism a good idea? Yes and no. Like any characteristic that exceeds that of the others around them, it depends on how you use it. Being stronger then others can allow you to accomplish more for the greater good. However, it also frequently results in bullying. The US has had it's share of both. In some cases we have performed acts of great compassion, but in others, meddling in the affairs of nations more then we should. Our strength doesn't give us the right to some special Exceptionalism. Rather it burdens us with a responsibility to be of greater character than other nations, and frankly I worry that given human nature's self tendencies, it's too much to ask we will sustain that.
I wish I had a higher opinion of how a nations foundation of ethics could allow it to lead it's self and the world from a well earned position of moral certitude, however I don't see us as there yet, and to rely to heavily on this as a foundation for how one nation will interact with other, is blind our selves to true human nature.
John G.
I'll add WWII era Japan, China taking over Tibet, and Iraq in 1990 to your list of nations not respecting the sovereignty of their neighbors. I would argue that the mere fact that we can so easily count how many times a one nation has invaded another with the intent of permanently controlling it shows hoe successful this treaty has been. Furthermore with the sole exception of Tibet each of these violations of sovereignty was undone by the international community.
DeleteI believe that working on concert with the UN, NATO, the EU, etc... acts as a check against the U.S. acting like an international bully. The obvious example is the Iraq War, which most of our allies refused to support on the grounds that 1. the WMD's didn't exist, and 2. Iraq didn't actually pose a real and imminent threat.
In response to your last paragraph I will quote Margaret Mead who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Without one person or one nation pulling the world toward a higher standard of ethical conduct, we would remain in a state of nature.
I'd like to believe that a Republican nominee will not be so foolish as to follow Mr. Rove's advice to the letter. While most of his logic is flawed, particularly his stance that foreign policy is a weakness for President Obama, his argument concerning American Exceptionalism brings up an interesting psychological and sociological point about the image he feels America does and should project. By pursuing and re-emphasizing American Exceptionalism abroad, Mr. Rove seems to want to restore the USA to an image of ultimate greatness, as it was viewed during the Cold War and WWII. As Mr. Rove note's in his article,
ReplyDelete"the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters, feared) as the preeminent global power."
It's a long fall from the top, particularly when the fall isn't as large as is perceived. Mr. Rove seems to be under the impression that the USA is losing face internationally and that it will lead to further decline. He is also under the impression that the USA has already lost a considerably greater amount of credibility than it has. To be perfectly frank, his notion seems silly. Mr. Rove's entire article is about drawing forth the emotional response and the nationalist pride that once swelled throughout much of the nation in the wake of 9/11.
Winning the voters hearts in this manner will not win this election. Mr. Rove seems to be under the impression that Americans are more concerned with their international image than with finding jobs and fixing our own economy. Appealing to the heartstrings is a technique more successfully utilized in an election where neither nominee is seeking re-election. In that case neither nominee has any in-office track record (disregarding their prior public office positions) with which to prove their capabilities. In contrast, a candidate like President Obama will have the support of an in-office track record to boost his campaign and demonstrate his abilities.
The Republican nominee would do far better to criticize President Obama on his handling of the economic and unemployment crisis. One simply cannot take down President Obama on foreign policy in this election. He should criticize and offer alternatives to President Obama's economic strategies.
Thanks for the comment. To build on your psychological/sociological idea; if Karl Rove's end goal is to have the United States be universally respected (and in countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria, feared), is American Exceptionalism the best code of conduct to follow?
DeleteI would argue it isn't, and that the United States would be more respected as the preeminent global power and a force for good in the world by working in a cooperative,peer-to-peer, relationship with other nations. Conversely the U.S. would undoubtedly be more feared if we always acted unilaterally with a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.
Mr. Rove is not wrong in saying the United States has less soft power now than it did 20 years ago. What he doesn't acknowledge is that this is largely due to the rise of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). The economic success of these Nations, as well as Turkey and Germany, has shifted the world from a unipolar world with the U.S. on top, towards a multipolar system similar to the one that existed in the century prior to the First World War.
You, me, and the Republican National Committee agree that the republican nominee would be best served by emphasizing the national debt, unemployment, and high gas prices. These points are from a "Pundit Prep" memo released by the RNC on February 10th.