Does Bush's foreign policy make any sense at all?

Great Debates
1

Papa Bush, in my view, had a fairly mediocre presidency highlighted by the fact he was in charge when the cold war winded down, provided a small measure of guidance to Gorbachev, etc.

Baby Bush, with a weak grasp of foreign policy and an ironclad one for making sure his staffers get enough vacation, seems to be picking fights simultaneously with China, the Soviet Union and North Korea. My question is, how does this benefit American interests?

The administration has solidly identified China as a strategic competitor. It is clear the administration thinks, as I do, that China will form the next serious challenge to American dominance. America has not generally been concerned with human rights in China and is now upset with them on the basis of arms sales, Taiwan and industrial espionage (although the Canadian Intelligence Agency released a report last year accusing wealthy Chinese of buying huge amounts of property and industry in Canada, which was immediately criticized by the government for being provocative and/or inaccurate – one wonders what the true story was/is).

At the same time, the Bush administration has expelled Russian diplomats and made their relationship much frostier.

At the same time, Bush wants South Korea to stop attempts to reconciliate with North Korea.

And finally Bush continues to support a Global Defense Missile System of high cost and dubious worth.

Does it make sense to alienate all of the Communists at the samwe time? China and Russia haven’t seen eye to eye in years. How does it promote American interests to encourage them to have a closer understanding? Does Bush even have a coherent policy when it seems obvious his Secretary of State (Powell) and his other advisors (Rice and his Secretary of Defence) disagree so strongly on basics like his proposed defence system? Why do I get the feeling powell understands defence better than Condoleeza Rice?

2

Clearly expelling Chinese spies is going to alienate the Chinese, who enjoyed free reign under the Clinton administration in return for a few million in illegal campaign contributions. This strikes me as a return to the status quo, and away from what was clearly dangerous to our national security under the previous administration.

Ticking off the Russians? Who cares? Their economy isn’t in any kind of shape to pose a threat to us. They aren’t going to ally themselves with China, either, so it doesn’t matter how many Communist regimes are pissed off at us at one time.

And the purpose of National Missile Defense is partly as a response to North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. The PRK is still recovering from their famine, so the risk of them starting a no-lose nuclear war with South Korea has gone down, but the Clinton treaty where we help them build nuclear reactors in return for their promise to stop building nuclear bombs is dangerously stupid. They will certainly accept the help, build the reactors, and continue to develop nuclear bombs in secret. Closed society, you know.

You can’t have a foreign policy without offending someone. At least we are offending the right people. Any policy of which the North Koreans approve has got to have something wrong with it.

Regards,
Shodan

3

How is offending the Russians a good idea? Who, btw, are not really communist anymore. (Yes, there is a communist party, but it’s not the official system anymore.).

4

How does all this benefit American interests, you ask?

Well, it makes the armaments manufacturing combines happy (all big supporters of a certain political party, natch) … with all these newly pissed-off enemies, we’re going to be needing a lot more weapons.

And the precision-bomb annihilation of some punk nation like North Korea would be SO good for the ol’ personal ratings - just like dear old Dad! -, which suffer so greatly from that nasty business of not being actually elected, per se, you know, being the overwhelming choice of the minority of the people and all … Can’t wait, should make for great TV, which so far the Bush administration has not.

5

Is there some factual basis for the “free reign” or is this just more partisan bashing?

I would guess some folks with a sense of possible fallout and a reaonable grasp of what the Russians can do to make some policy areas a real morass for us.

In fact, that is a threat. All kinds of risks arise just from this fact: do recall they have a non-insubstantial if degraded nuclear arsenal, a great deal of nuclear know-how, and a potential to put a monkey wrench in several areas, including our new found interests in the oil regions of Central Asia, etc.

This statement appears to mean that you have not learned that the Communist party lost control of Russia some years ago. Further, that the system is no longer Communist. Further, the assertion that Russia and China might not find common cause given a stupid enough policy program on the part of the USA, is naive at best.

I might note that two nations with veto power in the Security Council could throw all kinds of wrenches in our programs.

Which is on hold. And which has yet to achieve the ability to hit the USA aside from possibly Alaska. Further, the NMD is fairly clearly a violation of our treaty obligations, aside from looking technically unfeasible in any near term application.

(a) NK can get assitance from a whole bunch of sources, including Russia and China.
(b) the rationale as I understood the policy was to (i) permit entry (ii) lock in NK into relations with the West (iii) further South Korean efforts to help liberalize the North.

In re closed society, we retain the self same sources which allowed us to originally determine there was a building program. Large scale works are detectable.

Any analysis which begins with a number of factually suspect assertions and ends up with an outdated, ideologically based knee-jerk response clearly has something wrong with it.

Perhaps one might note how unenthusiastic the South Koreans are for the new return to Cold War style thinking. One might ask oneself in re this question if South Korean reading of the situation might not have some merit to them. Or one could simply unearth moldy cold war analyses to appeal to the domestic peanut gallery.

6

Addendum:

This is not to say I think foreign relations are all about being nice nice and happy happy with everyone. Rather, the presentation in regards to this question was wrongheaded. Rational cost-benefit analysis should drive one’s decisions.

7

I would amend that to say “rational long-term cost-benefit analysis…”

I’m actually more disturbed by the “us .vs. them” mentality displayed by some posters. I think that the fear of the dwindling supply of non-renewable resources (amplified in the minds of Joe Public by last summer’s gasoline price hikes) has led some people into an “endgame” mentality, where “we” have to get there first and beat off all of “them”, who are trying to take away our wealth and prosperity, undermine our security, and all of that.

8

What the hell? Did I just walk back into the Cold War? Russia ain’t commie no more, and with ten years of shitty–but undeniable–freedom, I bet my errant testacle they won’t go back.

Our current Cleptocrat, Shrub, is not doing anything he didn’t say he wouldn’t do. I felt that the Clinton administration was astute in attempting to ignore China until it fell under the weight of its absurd communist underpinnings. (Perhaps another ten years of independant investigation and another ten million dollars will show that the Chicoms were in Slick Willie’s lap, perhaps not, but don’t be so pedantic as to call the relationship illegal now.)

I see the current administration’s initial foreign policy as a not unpredicted attempt to divide world consensus against us while quietly paying off those who support us. Thus:

  • divide consensus in the Middle East while simultaneously inviting oil-producing nations to profit from our self-declared “energy crisis;”

  • remind Russia that they are now a lessor competitor, and that we’re considering abrogating a treaty with the Soviet Union and their successor-in-interest;

  • antagonizing China through the triple forks of trade, Korea, and Taiwan, in the hope that we can confuse this enormous nation, and stated adversary, into capitalism.

It’s a pretty good plan, if none of the parties ups and decides to fight us. Why we have to escalate things to such a level, I just don’t know.

9

Agreed it will alienate the Chinese. Not sure that the Clinton administration per se was responsible for some the security lapses. Disagree the Chinese had free reign under Clinton. The last time the US had a status quo with China was 1948, when they announced how well Chiang Kai-shek was doing beating those lousy reds. Or did you mean the “evil empire” doggerel spouted by Reagan?

In fact, Russia and China have not been this close for many years. Both opposed the Persian Gulf war but did not use their U.N. vetoes. They recently signed a “Treaty of Understanding” which probably sounds more impressive than it is. I did use the word “Communist” to describe these countries in regard to the history of their political philosophies but did not mean it in the same sense you do.

Agreed they probably would do that, but don’t see it as a certainty. Seems to me Moscow still has more nuclear power than Korea. Clinton’s policy was more complex than you describe. Why does Powell oppose NMD if it is such a good idea?

North Koreans didn’t approve of any of the previous policies. Good foreign policy does not involve offending all the right people at the same time, particularly when they have vetoes and nuclear arsenals.

I hope you aren’t going to tell me that democracy and capitalism are the same thing, too.

10

A couple of things about the OP…

The U.S. has had a long history of weak and ineffective protest about human rights violations in China. I haven’t seen any radical changes occurring in that policy, and there aren’t likely to be any as long as major corporations think there’s lots of money to be made in trading with China. The Chinese know that our complaints about their human rights record are a bunch of posturing bull. Their public protests about our “interference” in their affairs are a matter of form, not substance.

Likewise, the U.S. and Russia have been unearthing and tossing out each other’s spies for generations. We pretty much had to do something after the latest embarassment. It’s just more tit for tat.

With “rogue states” like North Korea (and I think that term has been retired - it makes the rogue states weally weally mad), perhaps the thinking is that if the U.S. deals from a position less likely to be viewed as appeasement, it’ll make the Slightly Nasty Nations think twice before pulling something. I hope so. But the North Korean leaders haven’t shown much evidence of logic in the past.

11

Cite please.

Of course they were responsible. They were in charge. When you have control of the country, you take credit and responsibility for the things the happen on your watch.

12

I believe it to be the fairly standard reading of the ABM treaty, which of course was concieved to ban just such a thing. Do you really need a cite?

13

Well you see…

It was always my understanding that the treaty allowed for a missle defense sytem if one side gave the other side notice in advance. (6 months or something)

Of course, had I said that…

You would have asked for a cite:)

So instead, I just asked you for a cite.
I know…

I can be sooooo lazy sometimes:)

14

Things seem straightforward, Collunsbury, until you get the lawyers involved: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-00zr.html

Freedom, here’s a cite for you, from the text of the treaty: http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/acic/treaties/abm/abmtoc.htm

That seems relatively straightforward to me. Article III regards ABM systems for national capitals, and says nothing of a six months advance notice exemption. But perhaps a closer reading of the treaty than I have given it will shed new light.

15

Bush does indeed lack any background in foreign policy, as did Clinton and Carter. However, W did select a grouop of unusually strong foreign policy experts. Those who seek to smear Bush were unable to criticize his experts. The best they could come up with, as parroted by Dr P, is that there are varying opinions in the Executive Branch: “… his Secretary of State (Powell) and his other advisors (Rice and his Secretary of Defence) disagree so strongly.”

I appreciate W changing some foreign policies that had been based in unreality. One was the Kyoto Treaty, which the US Senate voted a resolution against ** 95 to 0**. Clinton didn’t bring it a vote in 3 years. It was never going to pass, whether it deserved to or not.

Another was the Middle East “peace process,” which assumed that Arafat was willing and able to compromise and make peace. Last year Israel offered Arafat everything he wanted and still got turned down. This demonstrated that peace was not Arafat’s goal. (IMHO Arafat might not have the power to bring the entire Arab side to peace. Also, if he made a real agreement, he would likely be assasinated, as have been several other Arab leaders who seriously advocated peace.)

In both these cases, Bush’s actions didn’t solve the problems, but at least they got us back onto a more realistic footing. Fantasy was never going to lead to anything good.

Some people would rather live in a pleasant dream world than face harsh reality.

16

Eeew. This could get sticky.

So far, I think that we’ve been remarkably restrained while China barks its typical rhetoric.

17

Well, frankly there is a real divide in philosophy here, Colin vs the Ogres if you will.

I believe I’ve said it once, so I’ll say it again just for sport: ** execution ** counts. I’m not a Bush fan, but I’m not really a Bush basher. However, execution counts. Rep counts. Repudiation of Kyoto, in particular in the manner done and without presenting other options has an immense, a stunningly gratitutious error. Of course one can recover from such, but it was moronic or incredibly self-absorbed approach.

And this will effect such negotiations as important trade neogitions. Fuck you attitudes breed fuck you attitudes. In essense, this foolish move just ** unnecessarily ** made our negotiating positions in a universe of other topics more difficult.

He was, so were the Israelis. Just neither could go as far as necessary on Jerusalem or the settlements in the occupied territories. Putting everything on Arafat is foolish.

Nope, the issue of Jerusalem was a major sticking point. Religion is a hot button issue everwhere, all the more so in my damned neck of the woods. The Palestinians, as I can attest from first hand knowledge, also had differing intepretations of other key points.

It’s a bit of beating a dead horse, however once more, pointing the finger solely at Arafat in, IMO, wrong.

Well, the last clause is probably correct, but A is an idjit anyway, so it would probably help. (Except I only know of Sadat as being killed for signing a peace treaty.)

Neither got us back on a more realistic footing. What both did was simply walk away from the problem without offering anything realistic in return. In my world, this is called de nile. haha.

Amateur hour or cowboy hour. Can’t tell yet.

Bah, humbug. Pleasant dream world my fucking ass.

18

Oh yeah? Tell that to the Reagan appologists who defend Iran Contra. (Not that I disagree with you, just sayin’)

I still don’t see the point in pissing off Russia. They are NOT, nor were they ever evil. They had some shitty leaders, like Ivan IV, Peter III, Lenin, Stalin, etc etc…but they’re not the monsters everyone makes them out to be.

19

Maybe to discourage them from spying on us?:slight_smile:

20

I believe the 6 months thing is that there is a clause that says that if a country chooses to abrogate the treaty then they must give 6 months notice. So, yes, we wouldn’t exactly be outright violating the treaty if we gave 6 months notice that we were no longer planning to abide by it. I think the net effect would be much the same though, even if we could claim that technically we didn’t simply break it.