The presidential campaigns are cranking up in
earnest, but the issues being discussed are too narrowly focused. Overcoming
the pandemic and addressing racial unrest are clearly important challenges, but
there are other problems that deserve attention.
Donald Trump is maybe the worst US president in
modern times, and Joe Biden is not everybody’s first choice. But the election
should be about more than the personalities of the candidates. Their views on a
broad array of critical issues need to be carefully scrutinized.
Major attention must be given to the issue of the
nation’s foreign policy because few of the challenges the country faces can
resolved unilaterally. Unfortunately, America’s relations with the rest of
world today are almost uniformly bad, and their future trajectory does not look
any better.
Robert M. Gates, a former secretary of defense and
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has recently published an
unfavorable assessment of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War period. In his
book entitled, Exercise of Power, Gates
claims that when the Cold War ended “the United States dominated the world
militarily, economically, politically, and culturally---in every dimension of
power. Not since the apogee of the Roman Empire had one country been in that
position.”
But things have not gone well for the United States
since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
A member of the National Security Council in four
administrations, Gates places part of the blame on the failure of both
executive and Congressional leaders “to recognize, resource, and use the
arsenal of nonmilitary assets that proved of critical importance in the long
contest with the Soviet Union.” He contends that “our place in the world…will
depend for certain on a strong military but also on reimagining and rebuilding
those nonmilitary tools.”
Among the nonmilitary tools Gates cites are trade,
development and humanitarian assistance, cyber, and strategic communications.
The last he describes as essential to our ability to capitalize on the
successes resulting from exercise of the other instruments of power. Cyber
warfare he labels as the most powerful weapon in a nation’s arsenal today,
allowing the perpetrator to inflict great damage on military and civilian infrastructure
while maintaining deniability.
As for America’s economic power, Gates is concerned
that trade and other economic tools are being deployed principally in a
punitive manner. Sanctions are never successful without broad international
cooperation. Tariffs are more likely to cause damage to domestic producers than
they are to change foreign behavior.
China is seen by Gates as the major threat to
American interests. Impressed with China’s accomplishments, he calls it “a
multidimensional power eager to challenge the US in every sphere.” Since both
sides apparently recognize military conflict between the two would be
horrendous, the competition is likely to be conducted with largely nonmilitary
tools, and China has been far more diligent about enhancing these instruments
of power than has the US over the last twenty-five or thirty years. Managing
our relationship with China will require a willingness to work with an
international coalition.
Critical of budget cuts that have been imposed on
the US State Department and other areas of civilian expertise relative to our
foreign policy objectives, Gates also faults the failure to tap the talent
available at America’s colleges and universities for economic and political
development assistance. He suggests as well that it is a mistake to allocate so
much aid money to the Defense Department instead of to other nonmilitary agencies
Although a Republican, Gates is bipartisan in his
criticism. The errors he writes about have occurred under Democratic and Republican
administrations. He is not interested in assigning blame. Instead, Gates urges
the crafting of a comprehensive foreign policy strategy less reliant on
military force and more innovative in the deployment of the country’s
nonmilitary instruments of power.
Clearly, the capacity to develop and implement an
effective foreign policy must be a major requirement in 2020. It is fortunate
that both major party candidates this year have a known record relative to
their skills in setting priorities, managing government and conducting
international communications and negotiations, so it is possible to have a
reasonable understanding of what may be expected from each.
Furthermore, the analyses contained in Exercise of Power can be useful for
voters trying to determine how well a candidate can meet the overall
responsibilities of the American presidency in these stressful times. Overcoming
the pandemic will ultimately require an orderly strategy, inspirational
leadership and a willingness to work with other interested parties. The same is
true in addressing the racial unrest in America. Recognition of previous
mistakes is necessary, but neither fear nor denial will be useful in moving us
towards reconciliation.
What it boils down to is which candidate has the knowledge and temperament to appreciate the complexities of the world; which candidate is willing to and capable of working collaboratively with the diverse personalities that have an interest in addressing our common problems; and which candidate is capable of inspiring confidence in our collective efforts?
