OPEN UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 8, 2006
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
by Jacob T. LevyIsaac Chotiner, over at our sister blog The Plank, notes:
As an American, it's been hard not to follow Blair's descent over the past couple of years without an abiding sense of, well, shame. [...]But, his predicament has been relentlessly worsened by the Bush administration's continued unwillingness to offer rhetorical or substantive assistance to its best (and, in a practical sense, only) ally. From Guantánamo to steel tariffs to rebuilding contracts, the Brits have been consistently stiffed.
Just so. See also Iain Murray at the Corner.
This is one of my biggest recurring complaints about the Bush administration--it's made the U.S. into a very bad friend to its friends, a bad ally to its allies. Britain, Australia, and Canada have all often been ignored at best, strong-armed at worst, during a time when the U.S. had foreign policy goals and needs that were much more important than the intra-alliance disputes. While Saudi Arabia can typically count on the administration's support and courtesy, and Russia could until pretty recently, closer democratic friends have been gratuitously slighted and insulted for years. Blair in particular, who has been one of the U.S.' strongest allies in Europe in the postwar era, has been kneecapped by an administration that refused to see that Blair needed to be able to show some ability to affect American policy in order to domestically justify his firm alliance. Never having gotten that, he was dogged by the "Bush's poodle" problem to his terrible detriment.
What I don't understand is why the administration has followed this course of action, which has been detrimental to its own interests. At least when it went out of its way to hammer red-state moderate Democratic Senators in 2002 and 2004, thereby punishing those who had been most open to cooperation, it got Republican Senators out of the exchange (even if at the price of poisoning relations with moderate Senate Democrats and so dooming Social Security reform). Punishing one's international friends lacks that kind of zero-sum reward. It's the sort of thing that Cold War presidents understood the importance of avoiding, in the interest of unity on the big questions. Independent of the merits of Bush's foreign policy objectives, it seems to me to have been instrumentally irrational to be such a consistently bad friend to America's friends; it's made the attainment of those objectives harder, and may have soured important relationships in the medium term.
Is there something I'm missing? Dan, you know more about international relations and foreign policy-making than I do. Has there been any underlying rationality to the administration's shabby treatment of Blair?
6 comments
I think that's the rational end that Bush and the more conservative republicans have. And really it's the same for a lot of politicans no? It's just that as rational actors, they have decided the costs of getting elected (alienating allies) are less than the benefits of getting elected. So, they employ an electoral strategy that allows them to win elections (benefit) while absorbing some cost (cutting Blair's knees out on environmental policy, on trade). Interestingly, the governor of California, also a rational actor, has sought to support Blair on environmental issues even though there is a presumed cost to incur (alienation of the white house) because he sees it as yielding a benefit (winning the election). That's my rational actor take on it anyway.
- twetten1
September 8, 2006 at 10:39am
Bush and Rumsfeld are boors, a problem in itself, but neither Britain nor Blair should expect favors or carrots from a relationship that's built on calculations of interest, period. Long past time IMHO that this nation shifted its attention away from Europe, and the UK, toward Asia. Here's hoping that more of our energetic, ambitious and talented young Asians begin choosing Foggy Bottom and Langley over Wall Street and Silicon Valley. When our foreign policy's shaped by people named Chan and Murthy and Zakaria, we'll finally be addressing the nations and issues that truly do ahve the potential to harm or help us in this Asian Century.
- teplukhin
September 8, 2006 at 11:48am
The Asian Century has been just around the corner for some twenty years now. The partial unification of Europe, though, has meant that NATO/ EU countries have a lot of freedom to project the power they have, while the difficult security balance in East Asia and lack of sympathy even among such should-be natural allies as Japan, ROK, and Taiwan keeps those countries' attention focused close to home. In short: the UK, Australia, and Europe matter for the U.S.' ability to pursue its goals in the Middle East and beyond, in a way that the East Asian countries don't, yet. And a smart American administration pursuing its interests doesn't have to think that friendships are permanent to think that they're useful. Ha'penny wise and pound-foolish is no way to pursue one's interests.
- jtlevy@uchica
September 8, 2006 at 12:39pm
Levy, Thanks for your response. Let's take Iran as a test case of your propositions. 1) The partial unification of Europe has meant that NATO/ EU countries have a lot of freedom to project the power they have First, the "partial unification" has not altered in the slightest the fact that there is no EU foreign policy, only a few EU giants and a host of dwarves. As to the "power [the EU-3] have", the complete farce of the EU-3's repeated "kick me, please" errands to Tehran has shown that it is actually not greater than, probably considerably less on this issue, than Iran's power. It's the EU that are the supplicants here, seeking trade carrots, not Iran. 2) The Asian Century has been just around the corner for some twenty years now A fair point. But unlike in 1990, China's become a pre-eminent economic player, and India's catching up. China and India's role in resolving the Iran mess is at least as important, IMO, as Europe's-- probably more so, as China and India are swing players. It's China and India especially who, given their deep desire for Iranian oil and interest in expanded trade with the mullahs, have the power to destroy any sanctions imposed on Iran. Which they almost certainly will destroy, btw. Also, unlike 1990 Japan now has a growing economy and IIUC what seems like a national consensus on the need to re-arm and up its military spending (I believe they're already #5 in the world in per-cap spend). What's missing-- and should change, perhaps sooner than we expect-- is for China to step up and assume the great power responsibilities that go with what is now a great power economy. 3) the difficult security balance in East Asia and lack of sympathy even among such should-be natural allies as Japan, ROK, and Taiwan keeps those countries' attention focused close to home Again, containment in particular and resolving problems more generally v-a-v Iran depends crucially in increasing the role of Asian countries whose interests in and views on Iran and other key issues diverge from those of the EU-3 and Europe generally. Especially in a >$70/bbl oil environment. Which is to say that it's crucial that we pay more importance to, devote more diplomatic resources, more bandwidth, more resources generally, to those Asian nations than to European nations whose posture on Iran matters little to the outcome there. I haven't even mentioned the most important nation of all for resolving this crisis, which is the resurgent eurAsian power that borders Iran: Russia. Why we're wasting so much time with the EU-3 instead of intensively working on the Russians is a mystery.
- teplukhin
September 8, 2006 at 3:03pm
Dear Jacob-- The answer to all questions of the form "Why did the Bush administration do X, which seems stupid?" is: "The Bush administration is incompetent, mendacious, malevolent, and disconnected from reality." That is all there is to say. Whether particular stupid action X is due to their disconnection from reality, their malevolence, their mendacity, or their incompetence is a pointless question--it is always, as they say, "overdetermined." Yours, Brad DeLong
- jbdelong
September 8, 2006 at 4:34pm
Other solid American allies in Iraq, like Poland, have equally gotten stiffed. The Americans didn't even provide token concessions to the Poles like visa-free travel to the US, which every other major EU member has. (Getting a tourist visa can be a major pain, costs $100, and a lot of them are denied--which makes it hard for people over there to visit family and friends over here. That's why this has been a big deal to the Poles for years.) Like the UK, Poland also got cut out of the major rebuilding contracts, at the same time as Bush's Texas friends seemed to make out pretty well. Don't think this kind of stuff isn't noticed over there. It's stupid politics on Bush's part.
- litwinski
September 9, 2006 at 7:45pm