|
Looking
Forward Sifting Through the Process and Doctrine
of the Foreign Policy of America
Adal
Isaw
Adalisaw@yahoo.com
March
13, 2008
Traditionally, the behavior of states and
their interaction with each other has been the main concern of
international relations. In the absence of a government of all
governments, our world exists in state of anarchy where there is no
authority to monitor peace and order. Consequently, war becomes the common
feature of an anarchical world order and security the common pivotal
concern of a foreign policy of a state, as the theory of realism contends.
America’s apparent interest to police peace and order throughout the
world emanates in part from the acceptance of this realist theoretical
view of international relations.
The process of foreign policy differs from
state to state and it can be hard at times to pin down exactly and know as
to what drive the process. In Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy decides the
foreign policy, few hand-picked elites may advice the government. The
result can be a deaf ear or a willingness to go ahead with what is
suggested. In a slightly disparate way, Iran may come up with a foreign
policy process dictated by religious leaders and some other pressure
groups such as the revolutionary army guard. The US does its foreign
policy process in fairly democratic manner. Nonetheless, it can still be
hard to pin down and say for sure why exactly US law makers and the
president come up with specific and different working foreign policy for
each country that the US have an interest to keep.
Many pressure groups campaign at the behest
of their own interest and the interest of whom they support. NGOs,
political, ethnic groups, and governments compete for the ears and coffers
of America. Even Eritrea is qualified as we have recently noticed to have
its interest represented in the US Congress by Donald M Payne. As much as
the Cuban exiles who wish to overthrow the Cuban government, a group of
criminals of Ethiopian descent stands to compete for the ears and might of
America, to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of
democracy.
The recent Senator Feingold’s hearing was
not induced by narrowly organized pressure groups, but rather by a general
concern about the state of affairs of East Africa as a region. It is one
thing to have a hearing on Ethiopia and quite another to have a hearing on
regional concern such as East Africa.
The mechanism in which Congress proceeds to
come up with foreign policy toward Ethiopia may be the same as Senator
Feingold’s hearing on the Horn. However, a hearing in matters of
Ethiopian affairs is likely to bring a Congressman like Donald M Payne and
those who are willing to lie and mislead Congress on behalf of their own
interest. Whereas, a hearing on regional matters is likely to involve
academics and experts of international relations who are by far
indifferent to any contentious issues on hand. There is also a difference
in degree of enthusiasm between pressure groups; vocal regional groups are
rare and hard to organize while those pressure groups focused on one state
are well organized and efficient. Taking a look at the efficiency and
efficacy of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the Cuban
groups would cement the aforementioned assertion. Last but not least,
regional foreign policy matters are less likely to involve moneyed
interest, the kind that we have deductively understood from Congressman
Payne’s political behavior.
Nonetheless, Ethiopia has narrowly tailored
interests of keeping its territorial integrity intact and not
wanting an overreaching hand in its internal affairs. And, any US
foreign policy that undermines these interests should be avoided by
Congress and the President. We Ethiopians on the other hand should educate
ourselves about America’s foreign policy process and the concept that is
driving it, in order to stay vigilant protecting the interest of our
people and country. Looking forward, it shouldn’t be that hard for us to
predict as to what kind of foreign policy objectives or doctrines are to
be implemented by either of the three remaining presidential candidates.
No matter who becomes the next president,
there will be a very slight and ambiguous shift in US foreign policy, from
the Bush Doctrine, initially formulated after September 11, 2001.
Bush's Doctrine never made a distinction between terrorists and those who
harbor them. Do you remember the speech on September 20, 2001? President
Bush summed up his policy by asserting that,"...Every nation, in
every region, now has a decision to make. Either you're with us, or you're
with the terrorists." Ethiopia is with America and there is no
question about it on this front.
The broader Bush Doctrine is
premised on a muscular foreign policy, crafted and drafted by the Neocons
in a National Security Council text, entitled The National Security
Strategy of the United States, issued on September 20, 2002. There are
four foreign policy components to this Doctrine:
1 Pre-emptive war
Simply put, warring on US choice; based on
US's sole judgment. An example would be going to war with Iran to impede
Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Don't expect Obama to get rid off
this policy in a clear-cut manner. Why do I say this? Obama has made it
clear that he will be chasing Osama even if that means to get into
Pakistan without a permission. An extension of Obama's assertion can be,
taking a military action against regrouping terrorists before they embark
to harm America-which in turn means making a pre-emptive kill even inside
Pakistan. McCain is even more assertive than Obama and Hillary combined
when it comes to making war on all those who stand against US interest.
McCain is a realist who gives emphasis to security issues and by that he
is the likely person to understand the Ethiopian plea. He is also the
likely candidate to understand the nature of OLF and ONLF and the reason
why the Ethiopian Defense Forces are taking counter offensive measures on
these terrorist groups. If Ethiopia is to preempt an impending threat,
McCain is the likely person to understand as to why.
2 Unilateralism
This policy amounts to acting against an
impending threat unilaterally in spite of opposition opinion. The
remaining three candidates will adhere to this doctrine in varying degree
of conviction. Obama is willing to act in a very decisive manner and
unilaterally, if he has the intelligence account that he needs to act on.
Hillary has shown the same enthusiasm, and in fact, she has even become
more assertive to assure the public that a woman president is as able a
warrior and a commander as a man president can be. By virtue of his
experience, McCain is likely to bring a consortium of willing nations on
his side before acting unilaterally. It’s also likely that the three
candidates would be soliciting support from EU and NATO in varying degrees
before taking a serious and extensive military action. Nonetheless,
unilateralism will remain to be part of the foreign policy doctrine of the
US for as long as the US assumes the so called lone super power status in
the world.
3 Strength beyond challenge
No American president risks to be seen or
perceived as that who is willing to deplete the superior military power
that the US is enjoying. It's almost inevitable that, any of the
candidates as a president will make sure to take any action in order to
continue America's status as the world's sole military super power. In
fact, America has made it clear that any power including of a European
region is to suffer the consequence if it aspires and works to take over
America’s military supremacy in any shape or form.
4 Extending democracy, liberty, and
security to all regions
This is a newly found doctrine that America
never implemented with eagerness prior to 9/1/1. The Bush Doctrine
incorporated the extension of democracy and liberty into its doctrine
believing those who are bent to extreme actions can be pacified. In any
case, when it comes to this sort of friendly doctrine, Obama would even go
a bit further than Bush had, especially in Africa, to act on this policy.
My fear is that, as a president, Obama may end up pushing and pressuring
Ethiopia in ways that Bush had not. In this regard, Hillary is not that
different than Obama either. However, McCain is the likely candidate to
keep the statuesque that pertains to US-Ethio relation. Remember, McCain
views security and stability as the main concerns of America and by
that he is likely to keep the US-Ethio relation in sync.
These four foreign policy components of
Bush’s Doctrine are likely to stay the course no matter who the next
president is. As enlightened Ethiopians, we can argue and convince the
next president of America that, Ethiopia is in the right path to become a
prosperous democratic republic provided it stays secured and stable. Our
whole argument can be based on these four components that,
*Ethiopia
is a friend not an enemy that deserves a preemptive action of any sort;
*Ethiopia
is a friend not an enemy that deserves a unilateral course of action from
America;
*Ethiopia
is a friend not an enemy and is not competing with the US for military
supremacy by any stretch of the imagination;
*Ethiopia
is a Democratic Republic where its peoples have gained the epic of all
democratic rights-the right to self govern themselves as they see it fit,
and that its Peoples have ventured to Sudan and Liberia taking part to
extend security and stability to as much regions as they can.
What
more could you possibly ask from a country that is struggling to put an
end to years of poverty and depravation?
|
