In the January/February 2008 edition of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Democratic presidential candidate (at the time) Bill Richardson wrote an impressive essay titled, A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. The summary for this essay is as follows:
The United States needs a foreign policy that is based on reality and is loyal to American values. The next U.S. president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. Getting out of Iraq and restoring our reputation are necessary first steps toward a new strategy of U.S. global engagement and leadership.
You can also read essays from other presidential candidates on the Foreign Affair’s Campaign 2008 site. As a note, I have written my commentary on Barack Obama’s essay awhile back.
A New Realism gave some surprises into the insight of Bill Richardson’s foreign policy viewpoint, but it also enforces his expertise. In the presidential debates, Governor Richardson did not seem to fully give his perspective. In this essay, he generates a very impressive discussion, which I will highlight shortly.
Before I venture any further, Bill Richardson was a Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency and is currently governor of New Mexico. He announced his dropping from the presidential race on January 10, 2008, in which, his showing in the early results prompt this decision.
The following will be some key points that I found interesting in Governor Richardson’s essay. I will like to begin with his first example on the subject of security:
Sixty years ago, in the pages of this magazine, George Kennan presented a compelling case for U.S. global engagement and leadership to contain Soviet power. His strategic vision laid the foundation for a realistic and principled foreign policy that, despite mistakes and setbacks, united the United States and its allies for the duration of the Cold War.
Just as in the early days of the Cold War, the United States had a united front against the Soviet Union. After the Second World War, a new world order was established with a competition between the world’s two greatest giants on the global playing field, the United States and the Soviet Union, to determine who would become the utmost power, thus the Cold War. During this period, the U.S. was able to form a "global engagement" to face this competition of ideology.
In contrast, since September 11, 2001, the United States has not been fully able to form the same kind of alliances as during the Cold War. The policies of the George W. Bush administration as described by Bill Richardson have, "weakened our alliances, emboldened our enemies, depleted our treasury, exhausted our armed forces, and fueled global anger against us." This is an important argument, since it is a time when the American image has been weakened due to the touting of American democratic principles, but yet not following the example, such as, "secret prisons, torture, and warrantless wiretapping," and I would like to add, unilateralism. The Bush administration ran its policy too greatly on neo-conservative ideology that it did not, in the most part, view the issues realistically (i.e., the invasion of Iraq as an example). As Governor Richardson has stated,
We need to learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration and adopt twenty-first-century strategies to solve twenty-first-century problems. We need to see the world as it really is -- so that we can lead others to make it a better, safer place.
Here is another area of noteworthiness in relation to the IR ideology of realism:
Our policy also must go beyond the balance-of-power realism of the last century. In this new, interdependent world, we need a New Realism -- one driven by an understanding that to defend our national interests, we must, more than ever, find common ground with others, so that we can lead them toward our common purposes.
I discuss the balance-of-power ideology in the commentary titled, The Question of the 'Balancing Act' in Global Politics. I will present one example that falls into this category concerning the invasion of Iraq. The balance-of-power can be viewed as a deterrence between two nations (i.e., military capability, influence, economic, and so forth). Sometimes, a stalemate in war can set the boundaries of limitations, as what happened in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. To further this illustration, the United Nations sanction-regime in Iraq also maintained this balance after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. After the initiation of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this balance was altered. As we see today, the failure to reach political reconciliation in building a running government has tilted the balance in favor of Iran. Thus, the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has caused this grave consequence.
Mr. Richardson states that we need a New Realism that goes, "beyond the balance-of-power realism of the last century." He is right to state that a focus on one particular ideology is not the only path to pursue - as in the current administration's policies. A combination of other ideologies or more importantly having the wisdom, which possesses good judgement and common sense can be the best approach. As Lady Wisdom has stated - a person should pay attention, listen, and act accordingly [to Lady Wisdom], in order to find the right solutions and approach. A new "solution" and "approach" are definitely needed.
In this next notable section, Bill Richardson makes a unique stance:
We must restore our commitment to international law and to multilateral cooperation. This means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). It means expanding the United Nations Security Council to include Germany, India, Japan, a country from Latin America, and a country from Africa as permanent members.
I agree with Mr. Richardson that the United States should join the ICC. This gesture would generate much of the initial rebuilding of ties with U.S. allies. I feel joining the Kyoto Protocol would be another great step. Not only should we join these groups, but Bill Richardson states (relating to the ICC), "If the United States joined the ICC and supported it enthusiastically, the calculus of leaders who engage in or allow crimes against humanity to take place would change." Concerning Kyoto and beyond, Governor Richardson writes, "We must lead the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies."
As far as the expansion of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), I have some concerns. For example, what implications could allowing UNSC permanent membership to India have on the balance-relationship (mentioned earlier) with Pakistan? This should be given considerable thought. I do agree that members from different regions of the world in the UNSC would be more representative of the global community. I discuss more concerning the U.N. and the history of supranational organizations in my commentary, The United Nations: Past, Present...and Future?
Bill Richardson continues by discussing the diplomacy of the Bush administration:
The United States needs to stop considering diplomatic engagement with others to be a reward for good behavior. The Bush administration's long refusal to engage diplomatically regimes such as Pyongyang and Tehran only encouraged and strengthened their most paranoid and hard-line tendencies.
Diplomacy consists of three very important aspects, which are compromise, persuasion, and pressure; as a note, diplomacy is more than just talking. More likely, all three are implemented at some point. This current administration has focused too much on the latter and not the former two. The subtraction or overemphasis on a certain approach(es) leads to poor results. Mr. Richardson stated that this approach has, "only encouraged and strengthened their most paranoid and hard-line tendencies." I generally discuss this topic in my commentary, Peace in the Middle East. Also, The IR Forum member, Emma, notably describes diplomacy in her post, Obama’s plan for Iraq; a foreigner’s point of view, in the section, A Diplomatic Surge in the Middle East.
Governor Richardson also discusses Vladimir Putin’s Russia:
We should be concerned about creeping authoritarianism in Russia, which is a potential long-term danger to our national security. But we also need to realize that even superpowers have limited leverage over the internal politics of other states and that we should prioritize matters we actually can influence.
This is a very important development in the configuration of global politics. Russia’s shift toward authoritarianism is a great concern to the world. For example, this has become a conflict with the United States and European countries over oil supply. At the same time, the U.S. and Europe also needs to reevaluate its relationship with Russia and the causes that led to the present deterioration. I encourage all to read Dimitri K. Simes’ excellent essay, Losing Russia: The Costs of Renewed Confrontation. This essay best describes the need for reevaluation and the cause of Russia’s transformation. Maybe in the future, I will write a commentary on this subject.
Finally, I will give my viewpoint on Bill Richardson’s position on poverty:
[T]he United States should lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence. Through example and diplomacy, we must encourage all developed countries to honor their commitments to the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Poverty is probably the greatest and root source of conflicts in the world, today. It has led to numerous wars and resource battles, and also, it has led to practices, such as child labor. The United States needs to lead the global community in finding solutions to end improper distribution of resources, and it has to set the example. Since the beginning of mankind, groups of people have initiated wars because of a lack of a particular resource, as a means of survival. The idea of trade has helped in some ways, but corruption has tainted its good-intended goal. When we evaluate the general idea of trade, it is all about the goodwill concept of sharing resources with one another (in economic terms - comparative advantage). In recent years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been very successful with missions to help people in need. It is time that the countries of the world follow their example and importantly lay aside politics and begin to help fight poverty.
Governor Bill Richardson has presented some impressive positions and arguments in his essay for the Foreign Affairs Journal. Besides the usual explanations on U.S. foreign policy discussions, he has mentioned notable issues, such as rebuilding alliances, analyzing IR ideology, the U.S. joining the International Criminal Court (ICC), Kyoto Protocol, expansion of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), discussing diplomatic approach, authoritarianism in Russia, and poverty. Some of Mr. Richardson’s ideas are excellent and should be applied in a Barack Obama Administration. Bill Richardson has a lot of foreign policy ideas and experience to offer.
To view my other commentaries and news, click here.
Comments are closed for this post.
