Power and the US Diplomacy

Power and the US Diplomacy was the subject of Henry Nau, speaker at the World Affair luncheon here in Dallas today, Jan 18th. He characterized the prevailing views on foreign policy - he is a college professor – as nationalistic, institutional, or idealistic*.

The nationalist is one who sees events in terms of power and tends to argues that we do what is in our national interest. If we are attacked, we defend ourselves since no one else will do so. The nationalist proposes that we extend power to keep others from using power against us. They believe in a strong military for defensive purposes only. There is no nation building; it is much too altruistic and expensive to boot. Power balancing is a good thing since it keeps everyone in their proper place.

The institutional believer thinks in terms of all inclusive decision making and consensus building. International groups working together will come to the best solution for everyone. They believe in the UN, NATO, WTO and other multinational bodies. If we work together in organizations that represent purposes bigger than ourselves, we will not only build a better world that includes all countries and peoples but will also build goodwill for us at the same time.

The idealist’s beliefs are based on values. Our values are better than their values so we should do all we can to make ours prevail in the world. We believe in an open society with as much freedom as possible, and we should encourage more. It would be a good thing. This group can tolerate other values to an extent, but when there is conflict we must do what is necessary to impose ours and not the other way around.

He talked about some of the current events in these terms. For example, the 9/11 attack evoked the nationalist instinct to defend ourselves. The nationalistic response was to invade Afghanistan, the perceived source of the act of aggression. While we want a democratic society there, we are willing to let it take on its own characteristics. The president runs the nation in the midst of warlord countryside. He also point out that President Bush has an idealistic bent when it comes to Iraq, but thinks the President has a back up plan to give the Iraqis a chance to run and defend themselves and to pull out gracefully as they begin to take over the task of security and governance.

He took some question at the end of which I can’t remember. His answers, however, reinforced his message that all believers do so in terms of the three prisms he describes. He revealed himself as a mixed nationalist and idealist and thinks President Bush is the same. In all, he was an excellent speaker, and I understand his definitions of the three categories, but what does it tell us or lead us to conclude? Here is where all falls short, so I’ll stop.

* The Jan 18th 2005 editorial in the Economist “More Sticks and the Odd Carrot”, also refers to the Washington factions in very similar terms, at one point asking “…can the realists, neo-conservatives and multilateralists all be made happier in a second Bush term”?