Commentary: It's Time for Setting Foreign Policy Priorities

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Driving down the highway, I listen to a radio commentator in his best belligerent tone berating the Obama administration over Crimea and Ukraine.

But an unanswered question hangs in the air: What could or should the United States have done or be doing?

Few critics have gone so far as to suggest American military intervention. Concrete steps, including sanctions and excluding Russia from the more elite international gatherings, were quickly imposed by the Obama administration. But, beyond that, what are the options?

Here we encounter what some see as the dichotomous dilemma of the post-post-Cold War, post-Iraq and Afghanistan era: Interventionism or Isolationism.

Or is that really the choice? What about involved internationalism as a realistic mid-point?

Too many of our policy-makers, including several presidents, have failed to realize the functional limits of American military power, and we have squandered enormous resources and public support to the point that there is little sentiment for undertaking foreign adventures -- despite all the tough talkers in Congress and the punditry.

The limits of American military power refer not to our overall strategic capability but to recognition of the level of resources and manpower we can effectively apply in specific situations.

Some are convinced that because there are developments around the world which we dislike and view as damaging to international stability and/or humanitarian standards, our inability to step in and resolve them represents an American retreat or decline. Some argue that we are moving into a post-American world.

There is a long list of trouble spots around the globe -- from the territorial disputes among Asian nations about the South and East China seas to the roiling and bloody sectarian strife in the Central African Republic. Nationalism remains an irrepressible force in the world.

The East Asian disputes are of geopolitical significance to the United States and there is a strong American interest in charting a diplomatic resolution, a tricky issue because of China's central role.

The Central African conflict is one of a number of cases of civil or regional struggles, sometimes involving Muslim vs. Christian, and resulting in devastating humanitarian consequences. The Central African case also exemplifies the limited success in deploying international peacekeeping forces, which is one of the major shortcomings in international relations in recent decades.

This leads us back to the vexing situation in Ukraine. Russia's takeover in Crimea is in itself not of earth-shaking consequence. Crimea has long been linked with Russia. Having spent a little time there in the old Soviet days, I sensed a strong Russian identification. Indeed, it was at Yalta, the beautiful seaside resort in Crimea, that Russia hosted the 1945 Yalta Conference when Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill met to consider the post-World War II international order. Recent events remind us that we have yet to really establish that international order as the problems of Crimea, Ukraine, and the other trouble spots mentioned here vividly demonstrate.

It is easy to overstate the significance of Putin's power play in the Crimea, but also easy to underestimate the amount of mischief the Russian government can cause.

This is not a post-American world, instead a world in which the United States should make more disciplined use of power, more rational calculation of American national interests, and place more emphasis on soft and smart power rather than hard/military power.

President Obama says he wants to push the American approach to the world away from the power politics of the past. Cooperation with other nations is vital to this approach. In the case of Ukraine, for example, the U.S. depends on European nations to join in imposing the tightest possible sanctions and restrictions on interaction with Russia.

And we can't turn inward and isolationist, but we do have challenges at home that must be addressed.

All of this points to the need to emphasize soft power, which involves less tangible and more direct influence, including values and culture -- advancing interests through attraction rather than coercion, including public diplomacy and educational and cultural exchange.

Inexplicably, someone in the Obama administration wants to cut funding for the Fulbright exchange program, a prime example of effective international engagement and the promotion of mutual understanding. The Fulbright program is the flagship international exchange program and one based on partnerships with 155 countries. Yet, there is a proposal to cut 13.5 percent of U.S. Fulbright funding -- $30 million, a miniscule amount compared to military hardware and a drop in the ocean as a portion of the overall federal budget.

It is clearly time for us to establish priorities that should guide our involved internationalism and effectively employ American power.

Commentary on 04/13/2014