News

The future of American foreign policy is up for debate as Democrats and Republicans begin choosing the next contenders for the White House.

As Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson wrote in his feature essay Saturday:

"Imperial overreach has reached the breaking point. American legions are mired in Mesopotamia, and now the empire rashly threatens Persia. And there isn't a general to be found who thinks the empire would win."

Where do you think the next U.S. administration should focus its foreign policy efforts? What questions do you have about America's place and influence in the world?

Today, we are pleased to welcome to globeandmail.com U.S. foreign policy expert and award-winning author Walter Russell Mead.

Mr. Mead is the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think-tank based in Washington and New York.

He is the award-winning author of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. His latest book, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World, is a major study of 400 years of conflict between Anglophone powers and their rivals.

Mr. Mead is the project director of religion and foreign policy at the Pew Forum, a founding board member of the New America Foundation, project director of the Study Group on History of U.S. Foreign Policy, Phase II, senior contributing editor, Worth magazine and contributing editor with the Los Angeles Times.

He writes regularly on international affairs for several U.S. publications, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, New Yorker, Atlantic, Harper's, and Esquire.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Mr. Mead, thank you for joining us today on globeandmail.com to answer questions from our readers about U.S. foreign policy in the next administration. On Saturday in The Globe, our Washington columnist John Ibbitson argued: "The truth is that there is a broad bipartisan consensus on the way forward. That consensus, despite near-universal condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, remains quite hawkish . . . Mend bridges with Europe. Be firm but friendly with China and Russia. Offer carrots but show sticks to Iran and North Korea. It's all there in both the Republican and Democratic platforms."

So let me start today's Q&A by asking you to comment on that argument. Is there a substantial difference between the two major American parties on foreign policy. If so, where? Either way, will the next president offer a foreign policy that is substantially different that George W. Bush?

Walter Russell Mead: One of the reasons there is a limited consensus in American politics right now is that neither party seeks to replicate the policies of the Bush administration. One can stress points of continuity — no hasty exit from Iraq, no acquiescence in the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons — but there are important points of differences with the current administration that unite candidates in both parties as well. The next US president whether Democrat or Republican will not try to be a second George W. Bush, and its likely that both candidates will run as "change" candidates, seeking to harness widespread voter dissatisfaction with both domestic and foreign policy today.

Bob D'Aurelio, Ottawa: Mr. Mead, I read your book on the history of U.S. foreign policy with great interest. I would like your comments on what effect, if any, you think the state of today's media is having on the ability of the U. S. to carry out its foreign policy. I am referring to the extensive amount of media coverage of news and competition which have been generated by the creation of 24-hour news networks. In particular, I am referring to a bias in favour of presenting items which are negative and create fear. I am also referring to political bias. I think that these factors have become so prevalent that they have reduced the amount of actual "reporting" to a minimum. Thank you in advance for your comments.

Walter Russell Mead: It's true that the media focus on negative news creates problems for any administration when it comes to foreign policy. "Relations with Malaysia continue mild upward trend" is never going to be the kind of headline that gets editors excited. And it's also true that the immediacy of television coverage — buildings burning, blood splashed on the roadside, people screaming and crying — can have a powerful impact on public perceptions.

But is this all bad? Probably the greatest danger is that Americans (and others) will ignore world problems entirely, retreating into the affluence and safety of their own societies. The immediacy of news coverage keeps us connected to the rest of the world and brings world news home.

We should note that widespread world coverage of the carnage in Iraq has if anything created more difficulties for Al-Qaeda than for the United States. Public opinion surveys across the Arab and Muslim worlds indicate dramatic declines in public support for suicide bombing as a legitimate weapon of war, and for Osama bin Laden and his program. As people see the consequences of these ideologies in ruined bodies and shattered buildings, they increasingly conclude that no cause can justify these atrocities.

So while global news is sometimes sensationalistic and is biased toward the dramatic and the unpleasant, it has a positive influence as well.

Andrew Innes: China has built up enormous foreign currency reserves, especially of U.S. dollars. Does this have national security implications for countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan?

Walter Russell Mead: The places you mention -- Taiwan, South Korea and Japan -- also have large currency reserves and, like China, they keep most of their reserves in dollars. As a result, I'm not sure that the Chinese reserves have much impact on them either way. They are, however, deeply concerned about their competitiveness with China and also about their access to China's growing domestic market. The Chinese economy rather than its reserves is likely to be a key concern for its neighbors as well as for countries like Canada and the United States.

Max Tension: Mr. Mead, to what degree do you think that the foreign services of Western nations have degraded their ability to safeguard the overseas interests of their home countries due to ignoring the issues associated with the spouses of their employees? For instance, dual-income families are predominantly found in Western nations, yet there are so many external employment barriers and outdated internal attitudes preventing spouses from working both within our own embassies and in the economies of the foreign host nations to which they are sent.

A recent Auditor General of Canada report concerning the dismal state of human resources within the Canadian Foreign Service stated that financial and emotional hardship from losing a spousal career was the second-highest reason for mid-career resignations. How can countries like Canada and the USA develop sound foreign policy in the first place if we are hemorrhaging our best and brightest diplomats? How can we properly respond to events like last year's Lebanon evacuation if we are unable to have the right people in the right places at the right time?

Walter Russell Mead: In my view, having tax policies that encourage families to participate in the global economy and that make one's home country an easy and convenient place for talented foreigners to work are important components of sound economic policy today. As an American I'm not going to comment on specific features of Canadian tax policy; I don't know what other factors are at work. However, if I were a Canadian policy maker, I would look to find ways to promote the ability of Canadian citizens to work abroad on the grounds that this enhanced the ability of Canadian companies to compete in the global market while giving individual Canadians more opportunity to gain international skills and experience.

David Calver from Canada writes:

Walter Russell Mead: I think the US is likely to remain the world's strongest military power for a long time to come, however. In the 1920's and 1930's Americans did not step forward as Britain lost its ability to manage the global political and economic system. We kept our armed forces small and failed to take policy steps that could support the development of an open, global economy. In quick succession came the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War. Rightly or wrongly, Americans drew the conclusion from those events that if the US was to be safe at home it needed to be an active global power, both as a military power and as a custodian of the world economy.

Unlike the Roman Empire and most of the others in world history, the US has tried to promote the prosperity of its major trading partners and potential adversaries as a way to make war less unlikely. Germany and Japan were welcomed back into the global economic system after World War II; today the US is opening the doors to China and other developing countries like India in the hope that the rise of middle class prosperity in those countries will reduce the risk of great power war and provide the resources and political will to address environmental and other problems that face us today.

Chris Haynes from Victoria Canada writes: Will the US government carry out the suggestions it has received to put better informed men and women on the ground and thus make it as much public relations unit as destructive force? If not, does the US have a chance to change the world with its hard power?

Walter Russell Mead: Both the Pentagon and the State Department are thinking hard about how they can be more successful at winning friends for the United States. Both organizations were really set up for the Cold War. The State Department is filled with foreign service officers fluent in European languages; the Pentagon was better prepared to fight tank battles in central Germany than to conduct counter-insurgency operations in the mountains of central Asia. At the start of the Iraq war the uniformed military in the Pentagon wanted nothing to do with 'nation-building', peace keeping or any other task not directly related to war fighting. And, like the State Department, the Pentagon did not have much expertise in the languages and cultures of the Middle East.

All that is changing, fairly rapidly in some areas, more slowly in others. But there is one factor I would not underestimate. In Iraq, America's recent military gains have come as the result of co-operation between American forces and both Sunni and Shi'a Iraqis. A whole generation of young combat officers are learning that the goodwill of the locals is the critical factor for success in battles with terrorists. They have a much deeper knowledge of the Middle East than any past generation of American officers. As this younger generation moves up through the ranks, I think we will see a revolution in the way the Pentagon looks at this part of the world. And since many veterans end up running for political office, I think this experience will also be helping to shape the politics of American foreign policy moving forward.

Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: The U.S. is the world's largest supplier of arms. To what extent do you think this business situation compromises the ostensible mandate of American foreign policy to preserve peace and stability in the world? And what can be done about it?

Walter Russell Mead: It is also true that other countries won't stop buying arms just because the US stops exporting them. The US is currently not selling arms to Venezuela and Iran, but that doesn't seem to be persuading either of these countries to disarm. China and Russia -- to say nothing of Germany, Britain and France -- stand willing to make up any slack in the world arms market if the United States gets out of the business.

The two kinds of weapons sales that are the most destabilizing are found at the top and the bottom ends of the arms market. At the top, sales of nuclear technology can produce major world crises. The US has actually not been a major player in this market; France, North Korea and Pakistan have been leaders here. At the bottom end of the market -- sales of small arms -- again the market is international. Many of the small arms that have fuelled the tragic wars in Africa are surplus Soviet-era weapons. And in any case these small arms are relatively easy to manufacture and trade. If we could do a better job of stopping the arms sales at the top and bottom of the market, we would do much to build a more peaceful world, and I hope that the next American administration, along with friends and partners in other countries, will find ways to make progress on these issues.

Matthew Lucid from Waterloo Canada writes: Hi Mr. Mead, Is it possible at this point for the US to take a different, softer approach with Iran? Something that would have both sides make concessions to have a strong Iran to counterbalance a strong Israel in the area. Although not in power now, the reformers in Iran did reach out with a similar proposal at the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, but the Bush administration did not want to negotiate with Iran at that time. Thanks, Matthew

Walter Russell Mead: Personally, I hope the United States does everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative with Iran. Unfortunately, as you say, the moderates are now pretty firmly sidelined in Iran whatever may have been the case in the past. I think the key is to build the strongest possible consensus (ideally at the UN but with other important countries if the Security Council can't agree to serious sanctions) for sanctions and pressure. At the same time, if the military situation in Iraq continues to improve, the Iranians may become more willing to reconsider. "Track Two" diplomacy may also be helpful, allowing non-governmental Iranians and Americans to talk privately and seriously about a better future relationship for the two countries. But the present Iranian government is seen as a destabilizing factor even by the Sunni Arab states who are also concerned about Israeli power; it is hard to see the Saudis and the Egyptians welcoming a strong Iran as a balance to Israel.

Joan Brown from Canada writes: Why is it that the current administration is excited about the potential of Iran to develop nuclear weapons where as they did nothing to stop India and Pakistan making nuclear weapons? Gibson Brown

Walter Russell Mead: Remember that the current administration was not in power during the years when India and Pakistan were developing nuclear weapons. The US was apparently caught napping, especially by the Pakistani program. It's the combination of the apparent increase in the spread of nuclear proliferation, deep hostility from Iran plus the new threat of terrorist movements with strategic goals and significant resources that has made the US so concerned over this issue.

martin weiler from Guelph Canada writes: American foreign policy was once predicated on the founding ideals of the country, moreso than raw military efficacy. Since the mid-point of the 20th century, the latter has subsumed the former almost completely and US foreign policy is now dominated by a permanent, militarized bureaucratic power structure headquartered in the Pentagon. As a result, to so much of the world, America itself has become synonymous with military power and nothing more. Can the Republic return to it's founding principles abroad, or is it doomed to a violent and agonizing death in terms of it's international authority and influence, having suffocated under the weight of it's military-industrial complex? Addendum: Is the following conundrum within the continuum of thought among American foreign policy makers: The greater the projection of American military power internationally, the less safe and secure its citizens become, both at home and abroad?

Walter Russell Mead: How idealistic was American foreign policy in the early years of the nation? The North American Indians did not think it was particularly idealistic. Neither did the Canadians, invaded by the Americans during both the Revolution and the War of 1812. The Spanish did not think the Americans were particularly idealistic as the Americans drove the Spanish out of Florida. The Mexicans do not recall the Mexican War as a particularly high minded exercise of power.

My point is that we often romanticize the past in an effort to demonize the present. American foreign policy today is a mix of high ideals, dirty deals, and a strategic determination to gain and hold power. That is more or less what it was fifty years ago, one hundred years ago and two hundred years ago.

I have already alluded to the biggest factor in increasing America's global role: the fall of the British Empire. For much of America's early life, Great Britain held the balance of power in Europe, provided a global monetary system, promoted free trade and assured the basic security of the world's sea lanes and commercial routes. As British power faded, Americans had to decide what to do. We tried everything else before finally, reluctantly, stepping in to do Britain's job in a slightly different way.

This has meant a much greater global military presence for the US, but that is not the only dimension of American power that is greater today than it once was. A world economic system that has promoted the industrial revolution of Asia, the green revolution in agriculture, and will I believe in the coming century promote an important economic and political revolution in Africa has helped raise living standards of, literally, billions of people. Revolutions in health care that bring modern medicine to more and more people (still not enough!) revolutions in telecommunications and information technology that have brought more and more people in touch with the rest of the world, revolutions in finance that, whatever the temporary problems in sectors like the subprime mortgages, have transformed the access of poor countries and poor borrowers to finance on reasonable terms: these are also aspects of American power.

The Bush administration has made it easy for the rest of the world to forget these other dimensions of American power. That is one reason why I hope that a new American administration (whatever party it comes from) will be able to refocus attention on broader aspects of America's world role.