After Albright confirmation, whither U.S. foreign policy?
By Jonathan Power
LONDON (JP): U.S. Secretary of State-designate Madeleine Albright has won the accolades of nearly everyone who counts in Washington, those living and breathing the unreal air of well- being that has surrounded Bill Clinton since his remarkable political comeback. Even the New York Times, a steady critic of Clinton's foreign policy in his first term, now editorializes that it "is not in need of a drastic overhaul. On many major issues the Administration has shown good sense and diplomatic skill."
Having put behind him his early debacles in Somalia and ex- Yugoslavia Clinton's luck has held. On the surface nothing has gone seriously wrong. Boris Yeltsin is still in power, the Israelis and Palestinians are still negotiating, Rwanda and Burundi have gone quiet, there is peace in Central America and the Caribbean, and Saddam Hussein's wings remain clipped. But what any of this owes to Clinton's view and expertise on foreign affairs is hard to fathom. The long term issues which will make or break our world lie either untended or mismanaged.
Clinton, as George Bush before him, has allowed himself to be led by the nose by the Cold War warriors and worriers even though Russia, by all measures of defeat, has thrown in the towel. When the radical democrats were in power in Moscow, 1991-1993, the West was unable to come up with a significant aid package. At the time of the twentieth century's greatest Russian window of opportunity since the Menshevicks the West seemed only interested in who was going to pay the debts of the old Soviet government.
Germany and Japan were embraced after World War II. But Russia, an intimate western ally of that war, has been kept at arms distance when it itself, alone and unaided, shook off the yoke of totalitarian communism. The land of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Pasternak and Sakharov was and is judged by some irrelevant criteria not be an integral member of western society. Now in 1997 Russia is formally going to be certified an outcast when NATO formally opens its doors to new eastern members, Russia excepted.
If Clinton can be shaken awake in time there is still an opening. Russia is recovering economically against all the odds. The new communist threat at the last general election has been beaten off. Clinton has been given a second chance to pull Moscow into the western orbit. It means a reverse thrust and a change of direction--Russia to be welcomed into NATO and to be given a permanent co-equal seat in the top councils of the Group of Seven, the annual meeting of world's most powerful countries. Only this will stabilize Russia, ensure the continuance of democracy and give momentum to the most important foreign policy issue of them all, nuclear disarmament.
China is Clinton's second big challenge. Although since the days of Richard Nixon America has leant over backwards to accommodate Beijing, even sending, as President Bush did, a top emissary to smooth the waters only weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre, Washington has never actually accorded China the status it deserves, if permanent peace and stable relations are the principle objective.
For this to happen it means formulating a concert of powers, to use that successful nineteenth century concept, with China, Russia and, I would add, India at the decision table, along with the other members of the Group of Seven. (Within 15 to 20 years--sooner if China upsets the apple-cart in Hong Kong--India will probably overtake China economically and even militarily).
At the moment there is a dangerous tendency for both Washington and Beijing to focus on their differences--labor standards, human rights, nuclear proliferation, trade access and Taiwan. In Washington, Congress too often paces the Administration on these issues, all of which have substance and, indeed, do need to be addressed. But the question is how and in what way and within what structure? If the overall architecture of the relationship is not well thought out and constructed it becomes counterproductive to be obsessed with the shape of the windows.
On July 1, Hong Kong returns to China. If by then Washington and Beijing haven't cast in concrete the deep foundations of an enduring relationship then they are in danger of being unsettled by any seismic movements in Hong Kong, particularly if China moves to place firm limits on the territory's nascent democracy.
That in turn could set off a chain reaction that sparks more nationalism and independent-mindedness in Taiwan. Another U.S.- China confrontation over Taiwan is the last thing either side needs. The status quo worked very well until the American Congress was enlisted in 1995 in Taiwan's drive to overturn long- standing agreements between Washington and Beijing.
U.S. foreign policy must be Administration-led and led with a vision of a world that Clinton wants to shape. There is a once-in-a-century chance to properly set in place the pillars of a great and lasting peace. Every twentieth century generation before this one has messed it up. The big, but unanswered, question at inauguration time is have Clinton and Albright between them the historical sense to get it right?