COLUMN: The more things change?

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 President Bill Clinton delivered a speech upon his reinauguration last month affirming his understanding of the place of the United States on the world stage. "We will stand mighty for peace and freedom," he pronounced, signaling a continuation of the philosophy that has guided American foreign policy. At the same time, he was changing most of the major figures on his administration's foreign policy team. Great substance lies behind her verbal outbursts -- Albright is seen as a hawk who is apt to support military intervention, at times over the protests of generals. For example, during the debate over Bosnia, Gen. Colin Powell opposed escalation of American involvement beyond air patrols which were essentially casualty-free. Albright is given significant credit for the eventual American military ground presence, helping guard the fragile peace in the Balkans. It remains to be seen whether her reputation will prove an accurate indicator of the future. Clinton's new appointees take office at a time when conventional wisdom holds that America is still trying to figure out its role in the post Cold War world. Such a world is still confusing for foreign policy analysts. The idea that we live in a fundamentally different world than that of ten years either ago or before seems flawed. As Penn's Professor John Ikenberry has argued, the world remains in the post-1945 order -- an order based on the ideals and economies of the so-called "liberal powers" of North America, Western Europe and Japan. Despite the perpetuation of the same world order, myriad challenges face the new foreign policy team. The U.S. is faced with strained ties with old friends, questions of how to handle so-called rogue states and a number of nations in between. The last category provides the most vexing problem: what should be done about a nation that acts in disharmonious ways vis-a-vis American interests, yet is not an outspoken foe? How to handle the possible expansion of NATO is a significant challenge. The expansion is the most contentious issue being debated in regards to our relations with the nations of Western Europe, long our closest allies. To expand the NATO security blanket to the newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe is no small matter. In doing so, we pledge to defend any incursion into their territory as if it were our own. This debate is further complicated by the wishes of Russia, which wants to maintain some type of a sphere of influence in former Soviet republics and in Eastern Europe. The Russians oppose the expansion of NATO, fearing a change in the balance of power in favor of the West. How much NATO must yield to Russia's wishes is undetermined. The new foreign policy team must also deal with East Asia, particularly China. China has been termed a "21st-century superpower," referring to predictions regarding the future economic and military strength of the world's most populous nation. Her economy has been growing at breakneck speed -- an average of 10 percent per year --and her military is a force to be reckoned with. The importance of maintaining decent relations with China is hard to overstate. The extension of China's socialist rule to Hong Kong serves as a test of how the U.S. will deal with China in the future. America's policy with China has been schizophrenic. Sometimes the U.S. adamantly criticizes China for actions taken. At other times, we feign ignorance or act in a forgiving manner. China is not able to predict our behavior and thus often acts in blatant disregard for our interests. When civil liberties in Hong Kong are suspended, it will either provoke a reaction backed up with muscle or an apologetic "sorry, but this is none of our business" response. The new team must choose which path to take. Some writers have suggested that comparing former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright will shed light on possible new directions in American foreign policy. Christopher behaved as the master diplomat, traveling hundreds of thousands of miles to meet personally with world leaders. Many of the visits were, however, entirely ineffectual. He travelled twenty-four times to meet with Syrian President Hafez el-Asad. One time he waited in Asad's anteroom for two hours before receiving an audience with Asad. Another time he refused to meet with Christopher at all. This lack of respect paid to him affected his trip to China in the spring of 1994. Amidst discussions with the Chinese leadership -- partly regarding issues of China's domestic human rights violations -- pro-democracy critics of the regime were arrested. Perhaps Albright will manage to avoid such problems; she must at least learn from her predecessor's mistakes. No coddling of dictators will occur under her tenure. Moreover, her reputation as a hawk precedes her, and will make the Sadaam Husseins of the world more wary to provoke the anger of the often ferocious United States of America. In reality, any differences between the foriegn policy of Albright and her predecessor will be superficial. American foreign policy has been remarkably stable in the past 50 years; this follows the logic of the post-1945 order. While there have been tacks and jibes, the course has essentially remained straight. This is due in part to the continuous order imposed upon much of the world by the "liberal powers." More importantly are the unchanging assumptions that underlie American foreign policy, which have placed the debate in to an excrutiatingly narrow frame. These assumptions remain unquestioned by succeeding administrations, both Republican and Democratic. The possibility of radical change in foreign policy is a myth. Regardless of the differences of personality between America's foreign policy actors, American foreign policy remains virtually the same. It will continue as such unless we begin to question its fundamental assertions.