“Valentine’s Day and American Foreign Policy”

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Valentine’s Day and American Foreign Policy”

February 14, 2012

Valentine’s Day evokes images of young (and old) lovers, of chocolates, flowers, and of an estimated one billion Valentine’s Day cards, but also of Al Capone’s gang wasting the competition in a Chicago garage. It was Chaucer who turned two martyred Italian Saints into symbols of romantic love in 1382, with his “Parlement of Foules”, written for Richard II and Anne of Bohemia on their engagement. Prohibition, which was the cause of the gunning down of the unfortunate members of the Moran gang, was a manifestation of unforeseen consequences of government meddling where it ought not.

While ‘love’ is never a consideration in dealing with other nations, foreign nations should know whether they are considered our ‘friend.’ The Obama foreign policy seems to have confused friend from foe. Since the War of 1812 came to an end one hundred and ninety-eight years ago, England has been our oldest and most dependable ally. Yet, it was on this Valentine’s Day three years ago that President Obama returned to the jilted English the bust of Winston Churchill. The U.K. had loaned the bust to this nation in sympathy following the attack on 9/11, which killed 68 British citizens. When British officials offered to let Mr. Obama hang onto it for another four years, the response, according to London’s The Telegraph, was “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Staying on message, the Administration sent newly appointed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to Moscow the next month. She carried with her a large, red button labeled “reset.” The letters were in English. The United States had enjoyed good relations with Russia in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the war in Kosovo (1998-1999) and the United States’ decision under President George Bush to support the pro-democracy uprisings in Georgia and the Ukraine in 2003 and 2004 were seen by Moscow as interference in their internal affairs. An expanded NATO and the decision by Washington and Warsaw to build a European-based missile defense system in the former Soviet satellite nation of Poland were viewed by President Vladimir Putin as acts of aggression; thus Mr. Obama’s opinion that he had to reset the relationship.

Whether one looks at the Middle East, Asia, Latin America or Europe, there is no sense that America is more highly respected today than it was five years ago, despite the unwinding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for the above anecdotes regarding England and Russia, it could be that the President is a disciple of Chinese General Sun-tzu who 2500 years ago said, “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” Or it could be that he made a mistake. The rebuff was aimed at our century’s oldest ally; the “resetting” of relations was with a nation whose political philosophy is antithetical to ours and which continues to frustrate us and our allies in our relations with Syria, Iran and North Korea. Was that sensible, in an ever-changing and fragile world?

What prompted these ramblings was a provocative piece by Robert Kagan, entitled “Why the World Needs America” in last weekend’s edition of the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Kagan begins by acknowledging that world orders, including ours, are transient. And as they rise and fall, the economic systems they support also rise and fall. He traces empires from Rome, to Britain, to the present American-dominated order. When the Roman Empire collapsed, “culture, the arts, even progress in science and technology, were set back centuries,” he writes. While the collapse of British and European orders in the 20th century did not usher in a new “dark ages”, it might have done so had it not been for the presence of the U.S., and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He argues that while the assumption that America is in decline may prove true, that is not a good thing and should not be encouraged. The policies of Mr. Obama appear based on the expectation that America will have to share hegemony with rising autocratic powers such as China and Russia and emerging democracies like India and Brazil, with a return of the multipolar systems that dominated Europe in the 19th century and culminated in the two world wars of the past century, that left millions dead.

While there have been scattered wars around the world, the almost seven decades since the end of World War II have been among the most peaceful in world history. Mr. Kagan writes: “There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity would bring greater peace and stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty as to who holds the upper hand.”

The era of American power will decline at some point. “It will,” as Robert Kagan writes, “last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.” History teaches us that there is nothing inevitable about democracies. Just because it is, as Churchill said years ago, the best form of government devised by man does not ensure their survivability. They must be championed and defended.

So on this Valentine’s Day, despite outrages from OWS protestors, and dictators from Venezuela, Syria and North Korea, it is worth remembering that – and which should never embarrass us – a world that is richer and freer is due in large part because of American hegemony. We should also never forget that the survival of a liberal economic order depends on open trade, free markets and a powerful military presence. In capitalist societies such as the United States, wealth is diluted and, thus, so is power. In contrast, states like Russia and China that are strengthening their militaries are mercantilist nations whose goal is to preserve the rule of their respective political parties via the control of wealth, and the power that wealth brings. Fareed Zakaria writes optimistically in his recent book The Post-American World that rising powers, like China, Brazil and India will choose to live within the framework of the current international system. Perhaps they will. But more likely not. The current system exists, as Mr. Kagan notes, because it has been dominated by one country – the U.S. The rise of any other nation upsets what is a fragile balance. We have no way of knowing whether that change would be good or bad, or if things would remain the same.

Whether the partners of these other nations, in a multipolar world, would benefit to the extent ours have is an unknown – a concern worth pondering. At a time when cynicism has replaced trust from Washington to Wall Street, at least for a day I hope

This day more cheerfully than ever shine

This day which might inflame thy selfe old Valentine.