US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's speech on Wednesday outlining the underlying principles of American foreign policy was realistic and refreshing. We will see in the coming years if it actually affects the conduct of foreign policy, or was merely a nice rhetorical flourish and an exercise in diplomatic double-speak and illusion.
Most of what Clinton said was sensible and predictable, revolving around the main theme that the United States would not try to play balance-of-power politics around the world, but rather would try to build a "multi-partner world" in which governments and private groups work collectively on common global problems or threats. If translated into policy, this gesture by the Obama administration could be historic.
Two aspects of the speech and its official mindset seem significant, one clear and the other not: The clear one was Clinton's acknowledgment that governments alone cannot address global challenges; unclear is whether the United States understands that its own exercise of power around the world in an erratic manner is in fact one of the threats and problems that many people have experienced in recent years.
The US building partnerships with other power centers around the world is an excellent idea. Critical here is Clinton's admission that power is no longer concentrated in the hands of central governments. She said, correctly, I believe: "No nation can meet the world's challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence: from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels; from NGOs to Al-Qaeda; from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter."
The single most useful thing that she and her colleagues can do for starters is to recognize how power is exercised by multiple groups within many countries, and how the fragmentation and diffusion of power reflect a parallel multiplicity of legitimate authorities within single countries. The Arab world, Turkey and Iran in the last generation offer excellent examples of this. In the 1970s, central governments controlled almost every aspect of power inside a country, such as military and police forces, the economy, mass media and religious systems. However, the dominant central government forces of the 1970s have changed considerably in some countries "“ Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine "“ while others see central governments retaining their powers and controls, but at the cost of more tension and underground or exiled opposition movements, as in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Algeria.
Let's take Tunisia as an example. It is one country that captures the dilemma for the US most precisely. The opposition forces of the past three decades, including labor movements, leftists, Islamists, Arab nationalists and democrats, have all been driven into silence, abroad, into jail or underground by harsh repression that accepts no serious democratic challenges to its total control. If the US is serious about dealing with the range of powers in society, it should engage Tunisian private groups, NGOs and opposition movements in serious discussions about what they seek and how they imagine a future Tunisia. Yet, one reason that Tunisia suffers strains is because its repressive autocracy has been heavily supported by the US and other Western powers "“ along with the professional courtesy shown by fellow Arab autocrats. So, if the US plans to puts its admirable policy statement into practice "“ and I hope that it does "“ it will have to address these two contradictory issues: It should engage with all legitimate opposition forces in a country like Tunisia, while recognizing that American support for the central government is one major reason for the perpetuation of Arab autocracies and the expansion of opposition movements and non-state actors.
The Obama administration has assigned itself a monumental but important and long overdue task: to redefine the balance of its interactions with a range of official institutions as well as other movements or forces in different societies. This is inherently destabilizing. In the past, when Washington had to choose between supporting Middle Eastern and Asian autocrats and accepting their possible removal by their own people, it chose supporting the autocrats.
Societies in the Middle East will evolve according to their own priorities, needs and speeds, but the one legitimate role for the US and other external powers is, for starters, simply to meet with all forces and exchange views. When the US truly seeks to operate on the basis of a "multi-partner"� world and expand its contacts and partnerships beyond governments, this will surely help bring about changes to the status quo in many countries. This is preferable to perpetual intellectual repression, political stagnation, and national dysfunction in many sectors.
Hilary Clinton has articulated exciting new parameters for American foreign policy, and presumably she understands the full implications of her speech. We will find out soon if her actions follow suit, or if this is merely another round of junk diplomacy.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
Printable Version Send to a friend Listen to the Article
Your feedback is important to us! We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Click here NOW to Comment on this Article
More Opinion Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »Bold ideas are needed to advance nuclear non-proliferation »Iraq and Turkey: a fragile relationship that is improving »With liberalism floundering, mercantilist ideas are back »Fear and loathing in the Swat Valley »When it comes to global warming, talk of treason is in the air »The US gains little by publicly washing its CIA laundry »Jumblatt, or the burden of reinvention »Are settlements blocking peace? Of course they are »The best part of Robert McNamara was his sincere regret »Europe can do more in the Middle East »Iranian attitudes show an overt shift to liberalism »The "�American phase' of the Iraq war has come to an end
For a new Star Scene experience, check our new website at http://starscene.dailystar.com.lb
Privacy Policy | Anti-Spamming Policy | Copyright Policy | Jobs@Daily Star
Copyright © 2009, The Daily Star. All rights reserved. Click here to contact our syndication department for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material. Contact the Online editor to report any problems with the site or to send your comments and suggestions. var sc_project=731379; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=6; var sc_security="3de32f75"; LEBANON NEWS Politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» Nasrallah: We want no guarantees on our arms» Hariri court calls for improved relationship with the media» Citizens briefly take over Israeli post in Kfar ShubaBusiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» Bassil: Cellular firms increasing capacity to cope with traffic» IMF calls on the new Lebanese government to implement Paris III» HCP calls for bigger private-sector role in production of electricity -- More Lebanon News -- _uacct = "UA-360006-1"; urchinTracker();
Your feedback is important to us! We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Click here NOW to Comment on this Article
For a new Star Scene experience, check our new website at http://starscene.dailystar.com.lb
Privacy Policy | Anti-Spamming Policy | Copyright Policy | Jobs@Daily Star
Read Full Article »