As the possibility of U.S. air strikes against Iraq looms, it is becoming clear that Bill Clinton's foreign policy -- often derided as "photo-op" foreign policy -- is falling apart. The alliance against Saddam Hussein the United States has mustered today, unlike the one in 1991, appears to be composed meagerly of itself and Britain. True, the absence of a visible crisis may explain this state of global partnerships; after all, Iraq has not wreaked any destruction as it did in Kuwait. Nonetheless, plenty of reasons for concern exist, for the problems within the alliance are signaling dangerous instability in the international system.
One such signal is rapidly cooling US-Russia relations, as evidenced in Boris Yeltsin's recent remark that U.S. military intervention against Iraq would forebode World War III. The Russian president's rash behavior can be partly attributed to his frustration with his country's inability to rebound from its economic crisis. He is willing to compromise global security, having already signed deals with Iraqis to develop their oil fields, and is pressuring the United Nations to lift its sanctions, so business can proceed. Russians do not wish to jeopardize their friendship with Iraq also because it needs to cajole Hussein into repaying the $8 billion his country owes to Russia from Cold War-era arms sales. Yet Clinton is busy bailing out American banks that sank economically insensible investments in Asia with the International Monetary Fund-- support which Russia needs more than Asia.
More significantly, Russians' animosity toward the West has been exacerbated by the recent expansion of NATO, which has buttressed the position of Russian hard-liners that the West is not to be trusted. Consequently, the ratification of START 2, a tentative agreement by the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear warheads from 7,500 to 3,500, has stalled, along with other strategic accords. Such a result is unfortunate, as the benefits of the invitation of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO are dubious, while its exploding costs -- due to further integration of continental military forces and subsidization of Eastern Europeans who are far from establishing prosperous economies -- are painfully obvious. In the meantime, the Russian government will continue to let its soldiers starve in order to modernize its nuclear capabilities.
Russia is not alone in its difficulties with America. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's recent blasting statement, for example, concerning Americans' ineptitude in the Middle East peace process demonstrates their rocky relations with its number-one ally in the region. These trends reveal Clinton's crumbling foreign policy, based on the blind faith that economic, as well as political/military, integration is the key to world peace -- a principle that has no historical basis.
France and Germany, for instance, spent most of the postwar years recovering their bilateral trade relations that had flourished until the first World War. Great Britain, in terms of its current account as a percentage of its GDP, was more integrated with the world in the early twentieth century than today. In other words, strong economic ties did little to prevent war among European powers. The failures of political integration are more obvious than economic integration; the League of Nations disintegrated quickly, and we are today overseeing a dysfunctional United Nations whose days are numbered.
Increasingly, evidence shows Clinton's foreign policy is destabilizing the world. Relaxation of export controls has already resulted in China's diversion of civilian American supercomputers into military uses. And in spite of America's furthering economic ties with Asia, there is no indication that they have turned Asia into a land of peace. In fact, China's military expenditures continue to rise dramatically, along with its growth driven by foreign investors, the consequence of which has been regional arms races. Military spending in East Asia marked $165 billion last year, almost twice as large as it was in 1990. Unfortunately, Clinton's foreign policy team of Richard Cohen, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger -- whose expertise pales in comparison with that of the team of Richard Cheney, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft under George Bush -- has failed to detect such signs of perils.
Unless Clinton reconsiders his approach to international relations, the United Ststes will face a new era of instability, where the Middle East balance of power collapses, China emerges as a serious threat after feeding off Western technologies, and alienated Russians begin new rounds of nuclear brinkmanship. We should reintroduce policy based on political realism with the understanding that man is an economic animal. We need to grasp Henry Kissinger's words that "ineradicable hatreds," which no economic maneuvers can cure, pull apart certain cultures. To deal with such "beasts with red cheeks," thousands of innocent people may have to die in the interest of peace. That is man's curse, which Hegel called the "cunning of Reason."
At least Clinton has gotten one thing right -- which is not to compromise on Iraq. As the United States begins another, perhaps morally repugnant, campaign against Hussein, we must try to brace the harsh reality -- that blood must often accompany great deeds.
