American future foreign policy

When one reads a WaPo piece by David Ignatius I am attracted, even if he did pronounce in one earlier article that the global warming debate is over (at least in his mind). So maybe his judgment can be different. But when I read an article today that attempts to summarize what three old time men of the diplomatic past say about the future, I have my attention gained again. The three old time people are Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft on a TV show that is part of a round table series of shows that some or all of them do. I actually took the time to listen to the almost one hour show, and what they said and what David Ignatius said they said is not quite the same. In fairness to David Ignatius, and I believe he is well intentioned and a good writer, his judgment about what to say they said is different from mine. And I am just a common citizen. Actually, so is he. And the interviewer was Charlie Rose, who did a very fair job I believe.

At this point I diverge from the article and the Charlie Rose interview, though the theme in all is American future foreign policy. Clearly the old time assumptions and standards about the world as it was are changing. It is in fact important to listen to our adversaries, if often just to show them we can listen. Just who do we Americans want listening was really never asked? Is it the old time diplomats in their ways of astute diplomacy and dancing around the issue, or is it some new types more attuned to the present ugly reality. Is the goal still to use astute diplomacy to have our way, or to adjust to the new world way, what ever that is. And who dominates the future world? Is it the old world’s most complicated problems, the old world’s newest global balkanization problems, or good grief, can we address new world problems. These old time diplomats came across as old time diplomats. Though well experienced and well intentioned and certainly politically powerful, for lack of knowing what to do, they recommend doing what they know. The logic makes sense for many citizens.

Can we have a “new world” foreign policy? I think I heard such a diplomatic line during the show as “do the right thing and credibility will follow”. Never in the one hour show or the David Ignatius summary of same, did I hear discussion of terms like thuggery, bullying, the role crime plays in most third world societies, or even piracy. What I heard was more east coast diatribe based on lifestyle and experience based on the west. The general point of view was to treat many of them as moral equals. Another point of view and course of action says when those Barbary type people arise, one does not treat them as anything else than criminals who hurt us. We kill them to protect our way of life.

So one thing in a future foreign policy that is a seismic shift does, if it emphasizes the “new world”, is unleash the genies. In this is the path to the human future. And in any foreign policy, old world or new world, squashing the thugs and bullies is constant. I for one wished it had been mentioned in the show. We must always talk to all, but never be dragged down by the old world diplomatic solutions and thugs.