Between Jefferson and McKinley

© RIA Novosti . Dmitriy AstahovU.S. President Barack Obama
U.S. President Barack Obama - Sputnik International
Subscribe
The newly released National Security Strategy (NSS), the first from the Obama administration, dexterously balances the "realism", inherent to genuine "Clintonian" democrats, and adherence to the core American values

The newly released National Security Strategy (NSS), the first from the Obama administration, dexterously balances the "realism", inherent to genuine "Clintonian" democrats, and adherence to the core American values.

The document, released a few days ago and considered one of the key proclamations of US international policy, calls for better cooperation and "deeper partnerships" amongst nations, as well as strengthening "international standards and institutions", while promising not to impose American values on others "through force." "To succeed, we must face the world as it is," states the NSS introduction, and this has much in common with the basic Clintonian approach to establish American leadership in the world to mend ongoing problems without necessarily rebuilding the world itself.

Obama's doctrine seems to be written by a team who clearly shares these Clintonian principles. But it is not surprising, considering how many staffers previously worked with Clinton's White House. Yet, unlike Clinton, whose key task was to celebrate the global triumph of liberal democracy and retain American leadership in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Obama seeks to "renew American leadership" that was heavily debilitated by the previous administration's decade-long preoccupation with the credo that "America is at war."

As evidence of change in attitude and tenor, we see how the NSS tones down or carefully passes many of the most sensitive words and topics that drew the hottest protests in the Bush era. For instance, it is said that the American people would benefit if "other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity." Furthermore, notice the subtle shift in wording from Bush, who had declared that nations "deserve democracy" and "freedom as the alternative to tyranny", to Obama's NSS asserting that others "could determine their own destiny, and live with the peace and dignity that they deserve." Obama, therefore, has opted for "peace and dignity" in place of "democracy" while refraining from the use of "tyranny".

Additionally, security priorities are named without mentioning Iraq. The frontline of the fight against weapons proliferation and extremism is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. American leadership, according to the doctrine, should also be based first of all on the "power of our example" and not "an effort to impose our system on other peoples."

These narratives may be considered a key point of the doctrine - the proposal to deal with the world as it is, while not attempting to reshape it even if it does not want to be reshaped.

That is presumably the main difference from the world vision of the previous administration, with its strong commitment to change even by coercion. That is also the main difference between the "ideological" attitudes of Republicans and the "pragmatic" approach of Democrats, including the current administration that has already announced that it will interfere only in case of a threat to the US.

However, both visions sometimes fail. Neither the Iraqi campaign under Republicans, nor the Yugoslavia "peace process" during Clinton's term can hardly be judged as clear protection of American security, citizens or values, even though Clinton pointed to "genocide" in the region as an affront to humanity.

The highlights of the current document - and this is mentioned several times in different chapters - is a desire to do "a better job understanding the attitudes, opinions, grievances, and concerns of people - not just elites - around the world", and also to "act upon mutual respect and in a manner that continues to strengthen an international order that benefits all responsible international actors."

Much greater responsibility is assigned - and this idea is written in red ink - to the prominent international institutions that "play a critical role in facilitating cooperation," such as the UN does in global international affairs, NATO in global security, and the IMF and World Bank along with newly-born G20 in the world financial structure.

It may be worth supposing that this oft-repeated reference to the crucial role of institutions in international order is addressed to the world as a sign that the US does not act unilaterally anymore.

Those states and regions that play a more and more visible role, becoming new "emerging centers of influence," should not only use the benefits of the global economic and capital flows, but also take some responsibility for world affairs.

"No one nation alone can meet" the challenges posed by the complexity of the contemporary world, which is flat, interdependent, and mutually interfering. Friends and allies from North America to Asia should be engaged "as active partners in addressing global and regional security priorities". And special appeal is addressed to China, whose "responsible leadership role in working with the US" is very welcomed.

America is, thus, ready to share its responsibility with others. There are, however, two objections to this appeal. First, the US is ready to enlarge "coalition", but the suggestion comes along with the reminder that "America is ready to lead once more." In other words, it rather seems like an invitation to act under the wise patronage of one leader, which suggests certain guidelines and criteria based upon its values and vision of fairness.

The second objection is quite opposite - those who are now to play a bigger role in world affairs, such as Brazil, China or India, in fact, often do not show eagerness to be involved. As Kristin Lord, Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for American Progress notes, "The strategy depends on other nations to share the burned of global leadership - but what if they shun this role?"

Thus far most of the new actors have tended to primarily draw more benefits, particularly economic ones from their new role instead of taking greater responsibility for world security and stability. More often they seek "gain" without "pain", and criticize the steps the US takes (sometimes to get certain concessions and "trade-offs" in order to later agree with the US position). In short, they do not want to play a bigger security role, and at the same time do not want to feel like the "token" partners.

One could say that according to the historical and political cycles, the US is now in the "realistic" phase, accepting the world as it is and demonstrating a willingness to act with others, though not contradicting its national values and interests. For example, the NSS reiterates the importance of open markets and free capital flow, a principle that the US has pushed for years, so far without success, within the Doha trade agreement, and also reaffirms its support for "the expansion of democracy and human rights abroad."

The NSS presents a realistic approach based on idealistic vision. It may be said that the document balances between the Jeffersonian vision of America as a beacon of truly free society for the whole world and the McKinley-Hay "Open Door" policy based on realistic and narrowly defined American interests for defending the nation's future prosperity.

(Views expressed in this article reflect the author's opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of RIA Novosti news agency. RIA Novosti does not  vouch for facts and quotes mentioned in the story)

WASHIGTON, June 8 (RIA Novosti by Svetlana Babaeva)

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала