Realpolitik and a Return to Global Pragmatism: The Foreign Policy of an Emergent Third Party

Yesterday got away from me, and I didn't get to blog. I actually had my blogger window open and the title already written, and then all of my time was snatched from me somehow. But I hope to make up for lost time.

After we have already looked at what a Third Party's domestic policy and economic platform would contain, it only makes sense that we now examine the type of foreign policy that would best serve the country and reach out to the niche in the political system that would be most amenable to a Third Party movement. I am, and have always been, of the firm belief that Foreign Policy is always a direct function of domestic politics, especially in democratic nations like the United States. One of the reasons for this is that most people do not cast their votes based upon foreign policy-related matters, and if they do, it is based on ideology (problem #1), and when they are casting their vote based on domestic ideology, they tend to vote for politicians who are unsophisticated in the complexities of foreign policy, and so the elected officials tend to possess ideological views toward foreign matters (problem #2).

Ideological foreign policy has been one of the most disastrous components of the George W. Bush administration in the last 7 years, and was equally disastrous on the Left-hand side of the political spectrum during the Carter administration. There were certain elements of ideological foreign policy during the Clinton administration, though I think there was mostly just a lack of foreign policy. Foreign relations were good, but foreign policy was non-existent.

I do not believe a responsible steward of America's interests can approach the world negligently (Clinton) or recklessly (Bush II).

The United States cannot maintain its global hegemony without careful, meticulous attention to foreign policy and geopolitics from both a strategic and tactical standpoint. Foreign policymakers, starting with the President himself, must have a long-term view (in both directions...historic and future) of America's place in the world. This cannot be accomplished by a dogmatic adherence to some arbitrary view of foreign affairs. The following should be hallmarks of a Neo-Realpolitik foreign policy.

1. America must utilize and harness one of its historically most powerful foreign policy influences: soft power & cultural influence. American culture has been the aspiration of much of the world since World War II, and this cannot be discounted as one of the reasons we have been able to achieve so much. When the man on the street in Brazil wants to wear American clothes and watch American film, we have a powerful hold on global affairs. As soon as we lose that, our decline is imminent. The pervasiveness of "Americanism" itself must be shepherded, guided, and prospered, and most certainly not countered by formal national policy. During the Bush II administration, national policy has gone to great lengths to erode America's soft power in the world, and it is imperative that this immediately cease, and that the government instead promote our soft power interests.

2. The United States must immediately end all support of Israel. There is absolutely nothing useful, practical, or even ideologically sound about supporting a bully state in a region where its practices inflame 1.3 Billion Muslims worldwide against it, and whoever supports it. Both George Bush and Bill Clinton further made the mistake of trying to make the Middle East peace process part of their "legacy." This has proven not only be ineffective, but potentially hurtful. American intervention in the peace process has been a failure. We should stop trying. It only draws attention to our prominent influence in the region (and military presence), and that does not help us with the so-called "Muslim street." I am not at all advocating a policy of appeasing the Muslim world, but we can at least stop actively and purposefully antagonizing it. Additionally, the U.S. cannot afford to be aligned with Israel when it finally decides that it is going to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities.

3. American hegemony exists, and ought to exist, to promote its prosperity, as well as global prosperity. This cannot happen without global free markets, and in fact, without global free markets, American hegemony will a) be irrelevant and b) automatically cease to exist. The best kind of "Dollar Diplomacy" is not in foreign aid, but rather in Trade. When nations can prosper with each other, they will not fight each other. Wars are unpopular, expensive, and inhumane. Few people will disagree with that. Military personnel will agree most with it. This doesn't mean that we should not fight wars when they are necessary.

I am in fact reminded of what John Stuart Mill once said about men with nothing left to fight for (and I think the same applies to Nations): "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

This is not a license to warmongering, but it is also a reminder of the irresponsibility of dogmatic Dovishness. Yet, if war can be avoided through Economic prosperity, I can think of few more mutually beneficial diplomatic methods. The practical implications of this are unpopular, domestically in many cases. The United States must make unilateral strides towards the elimination of all import tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, and a total elimination of corporate welfare and subsidies, particularly in Agriculture and Aviation. This will lead to a re-alignment of American economic interests, greater domestic efficiency, global efficiency, macroeconomic prosperity, and simultaneously achieve foreign policy goals that can hardly be accomplished any other way.

4. The United States must make substantial efforts toward rethinking its approach to Military affairs and their relation to geopolitics and geopolitical diplomacy. The economic rise of China means that the age of technological superiority in military affairs for the United States is at an end. Where our comparative advantage was always in technology (and never in numbers), we would at least be equal with a new superpower if they achieved only technological equality (like the Cold War with the Soviet Union), but since China already possesses a comparative advantage in sheer numbers, the United States must recognize that it cannot be alone in the world from a military standpoint. It would be prudent for America to take a page out of the British Empire's play book: make up for ground strength with alliances. For Britain, it was India. India isn't a bad choice for America, either. India is the only other single country in the world with a population that rivals (and will soon exceed) that of China. Unfortunately, China is wooing India very effectively right now, potentially neutralizing our ability to form a strong military and diplomatic alliance. It does not mean we shouldn't try, however. I will not go into more hypotheticals or details here on this subject, but will attempt to do so in future discussions.

5. America must radically revamp its Space Policy. Space is the new ocean and the new sky. While Naval and Air superiority is essential to maintaining global hegemony, it is something that given China's rise, can be rivaled. Therefore, we must turn our eyes up towards the heavens (pardon my tongue-in-cheek religious reference). Militarizing space is not the answer, though. If we militarize space, then we will give license to China to do the same. We will find ourselves in a nasty Cold War in the stars. China is already beginning the process of militarizing space. The United States should take diplomatic leadership and garner support in Europe, Japan, South Korea to actively undermine any attempts by China to flex military might against global interests in space. The United States should invest increasing amounts of money (preferably through the private sector) to pursue economic interests in space, and make space a trade route, rather than a battleground. This will help diffuse Chinese attempts at extraterrestrial hegemony.

6. Peacekeeping Missions and Diplomatic Intervention. The Chinese government has become very adept at taking the "undefended hill." They are now the major diplomatic influence in a number of "lesser countries," though many of them, like the countries of Central Asia, are incredibly important from a geopolitical standpoint. The United States desperately needs to changes its approach in this respect. Whether it is by aiding the people of the Sudan in their existing humanitarian crisis, or building lasting diplomatic and national friendships with Kazakhstan to ensure overland trade routes and oil pipelines along the Old Silk Road remain open to American interests, the United States needs to take a more proactive role in courting Emerging Nations and developed countries alike.

7. Good Neighbor Policy. No place in the world is more important for the United States to develop friendships and economic ties than its own back yard: Central and South America. The increasing friendship between Iran and Venezuela is an unacceptable development, and Hugo Chavez's growing influence over his neighbors in Latin America is even more unacceptable. The U.S. has so much more to offer to Central and South America than the bankrupt socialist ideology of Mr. Chavez does.

Ultimately all of the items I have discussed are elements of a realistic, strong defense, strong diplomacy foreign policy that is rational, non-ideological, and would distinctly separate an Emergent Third Party from the ideological disaster of both the Conservative and Liberal wings of the two major parties.

Tomorrow we will pick back up our discussion of political process, and look at some of the more pragmatic concerns of breaking through the two party system.