"A New Realism"
From the AP:
SANTA FE, N.M. - America needs a "new realism" in its foreign policy and a concerted push for energy independence to safeguard national security, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, said Saturday.
Richardson pointed to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants, escalating violence in Iraq , the stalemate with North Korea over its missile and nuclear programs and rising oil prices as evidence that "the world around us in on the verge of spiraling out of control."
As a student of international relations I appreciate the effort by the Governor to articulate a new strategy to world affairs. For too long have I felt the left was totally incoherant in foreign policy while the right has been totally wrong. Ken Camp posted on this recently, but I thought it would be important to delve farther into the new rhetorical construction offered by Governor Richardson.
For too long the right's mantra has been: "Well, let's just try to beat them to death, torture them (and let the pictures out on Arab media) and botch the reconstruction while fighting proxy wars with regional powers. Did I mention we have to cut taxes and tell homosexuals that they can't adopt children?"
This is an outdated and ineffective way to construct a global security policy. Democrats have routinely called for "strenghthening our alliances" and fail to match the rhetoric of freedom and democracy. What Richardson is talking about with a New Realism is engaging those problems which prevent a peaceful global order from establishing while understanding the need to promote progressive change.
Bill Richardson, himself a student of international relations, understands that the effects of these issues rely on fixing some serious problems with our domestic and regional policy:
He called for direct U.S. talks with North Korea and Iran , objecting that the Bush approach has been to "outsource our diplomacy."...
On the domestic front, Richardson said, "We need a man-on-the-moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil — go from 65 percent to 20 percent by 2015."
He urged Congress to approve immigration legislation that included "a path to legalization for the 11 million immigrants already here."
While this has been the de facto Democratic playbook for awhile now (Kerry kept saying "Energy Independence" but I'm still not sure what he meant) Richardson is articulating a direct contrast with the failed Bush policy.
Also, as a Western Democrat, Bill Richardson provides credibility on two Western issues that have global importance.
Energy Indepedence is a neccessary component take make America a stronger international actor. Richardson, a former Secretary of Energy who has taken the lead in solar production in New Mexico understands this issue and sets a very realistic and credible goal - cutting our foreign oil consumption by two-thirds.
Richardson also points out that regional balance is important by saying we need a path for legalizing immigrants already here. These immigrants come from across the western hemisphere looking for a better life and the fact that we have little policy in place to deal with it causes consternation with our natural allies south of the border. Western governors understand this and know this is another area where our domestic policy intersects directly with foreign policy.
While I've never been a IR realist myself (in the strict IR sense I feel it overassumes the static nature of the state and it's actors) I understand the realist structure of the system. American power is a good thing, and we as Democrats should not shy away from saying that. American power used in a good and meaningful fashion can bring more good in this world than any other power up until now. Richardson has played the diplomatic game before and clearly understands that power is necessary (hence, his preference for realism) but he also understands the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of world affairs (therefore, new realism).
What is next for Richardson is to articulate how his "New Realism" applies to his former base of operations - the United Nations.
As a Western Democrat, Richardson knows the value of working with others to achieve plausible and positive goals. As a former Ambassador to the United Nations, he knows how American power works in the necessary yet flawed world body. I'd like to see Richardson articulate some Western common-sense reforms that don't denigrate the United Nations (ahem...Bolton)but rather respect it's value and prospects for the future.
I hope to see a greater fleshing out of the "New Realism." The Nevada caucuses would make an excellent start...
Landon Mascareñaz | August 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
While the Middle East and North Korea are our primary responsibilities when talking about foreign policy, what about Africa? Does Richardson's 'New Realism' include plans for existing problems in Darfur, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, etc.?
How far will the 'New Idealism' go to preserve our power in the world in regards to potential dangers in Central/South America?
Despite these questions, I think Richardson's version of diplomacy is THE alternative to our current one. In sum, this man needs to be on the '08 ticket.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 16, 2006 3:30:34 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
