BEIRUT — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech on July 15, outlining the underlying principles of American foreign policy, was realistic and refreshing. We will see in the coming years if it actually relates to the conduct of foreign policy, or is merely a nice rhetorical flourish and an exercise in diplomatic double-speak and illusion.
Most of what she 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 is her 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 United States 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. Our region — the Arab world, Turkey and Iran in the last generation — offers 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, the mass media and religious systems. 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 facing more tension and/or underground or exiled opposition movements (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria).
One country — any country will do, but let’s take Tunisia as an example — would capture the dilemma for the United States more precisely. The opposition forces of the past three decades, including labor movements, leftists, Islamists, Arab nationalists and democrats, have all been drive to silence, abroad, jail or underground by harsh government repression that accepts no serious democratic challenges to its total control. If the United States 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 the strains that plague it is because its repressive autocracy has been heavily supported by the United States and other Western powers — along with the professional courtesy shown by fellow Arab autocrats.
So, if the United States 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 new American administration has assigned itself a monumental but important and long overdue task: redefine the balance of its interactions with a range of official institutions as well as other movements or forces in a society. This is inherently destabilizing. In the past, when the United States had to choose between supporting Middle Eastern and Asian autocrats or accepting their possible removal by their own people, it chose supporting the autocrats.
Our societies will evolve according to their own priorities, needs and speeds, but the one legitimate role for the United States and other external powers is simply to meet with all forces in society and exchange views for starters. 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.
Hillary 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 Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.
Copyright © 2009 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global
—————
Released: 20 July 2009
Word Count: 813
—————-