An American Century

Editor’s note: Today, we present excerpts from Eliot Cohen’s external pageAn American Century: A Romney for President White Papercall_made. Although Cohen wrote the paper to support Mitt Romney’s recent presidential bid, its illustrative value goes far beyond US presidential politics – i.e., it provides a neoconservative vision of future American foreign policy, as articulated by one of the movement’s major thinkers. In Cohen’s opinion, those who argue that the United States should now either ‘lead from behind’, or even not at all, underestimate how such a withdrawal from the world stage will endanger its national interests and the interests of the international system in general. Accordingly, Washington should use its economic and military power to maintain and further strengthen an international order that reflect American values. The US will not fulfill this objective, however, unless it continues to present itself as ‘self-confident and strong’ rather than ‘weak and uncertain.’ To many, such advice seems sensible; to others . . . well, they might ask whether US neoconservatives continue to confuse national self-interest with a greater good.

Foreword, by Eliot Cohen

Now, as in the 1970s, as in the 1930s, and as at other times in our past, Americans are being told that the ability of the United States to influence international politics has passed. On both ends of the political spectrum we hear that the United States should clip its own wings, because it is too broke, too unpopular, or simply too incompetent to act like a superpower. American hard power, the argument goes, is waning, our soft power ineffective, our moral authority compromised, our will enfeebled. Some people even think this is a desirable state of affairs. This is an era, supposedly, for leading from behind, or indeed, not at all — propositions which amount to pretty much the same thing.

This is a fallacious, and indeed a dangerous doctrine. The United States cannot withdraw from world affairs without grave danger to itself and to others. Almost every global conflict from the end of the eighteenth century has, in one way or another, embroiled this country. Even if some Americans today wish to disengage from the world’s affairs, they will find — as they did on September 11th, 2001, and as other Americans did on December 7th, 1941 — that the world will not disengage from them.

America has global interests. Without a free and orderly international trading and financial system our own economic system cannot flourish. The values that make us Americans are universal: our Founders declared that “all men,” not some, “are created equal,” and Lincoln insisted that the Civil War was a test of whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” Whether we wish it or not, our values, our policies, and our example matter to all who cherish freedom, and our conduct inspires or dismays them accordingly. A world without American leadership will be an unstable world, in which unscrupulous or tyrannical regimes feel free to get their way by force, and in which international cooperation frays and ultimately dissolves.

The American choice is not, therefore, whether it should lead: it is how to lead wisely. Skillful leadership requires an ability to recognize that sometimes our interests and our values will be in tension, and to figure out how to live with that ambiguity, without forsaking either. It means maintaining strength and using it prudently, while refraining from useless bluster or diplomacy conducted from a position of weakness. It means sustaining old friendships and alliances while seeking out and strengthening new relationships. It requires prudence in calculating risks, while realizing that sometimes nothing matters as much as communicating resolve. And it demands self- awareness, because, to a degree that often surprises Americans, others abroad take the doubts we express about ourselves here with the utmost seriousness.

America has a strong hand to play. Our political system is legitimate, resilient, and adaptive; our military, if we fund it adequately, will remain incomparably the most powerful in the world; our reservoirs of economic strength and technological ability are enormous; our culture is one of enterprise and risk-taking; our demographic position is the best in the developed world; our political and social system absorbs immigrants and makes members of all ethnic groups equal citizens. We agree about much, diverging, perhaps, about how best to live up to our values, but disagreeing far less about whether those values are just and true. However serious our current economic troubles, no other country has this combination of strengths.

We have experienced many shocks in the last several decades: some benign, like the generally peaceful collapse of the Soviet empire and the Soviet Union itself, and the end of the Cold war; others adverse, including war and economic recession. One test of presidential leadership in the years ahead will be not only a clear articulation of principles, grounded on both ideals and interests, but the ability to react to shocks, to improvise and adapt. The likelihood of dangerous shocks will rise, however, if the United States looks weak and uncertain. The easiest way, for example, to become embroiled in a clash with China over Taiwan, or because of China’s ambitions in the South or East China Seas, will be to leave Beijing in doubt about the depth of our commitment to longstanding allies in the region. Conversely, a United States that is self-confident and strong will find more developments breaking its way.

[…]

Introduction: American power and the world

[…]

Whoever takes the oath of office in January of 2013 will need to grapple with a bewildering array of threats and opportunities. At one end of the spectrum are the traditional problems of statecraft. Powerful countries such as China and Russia are growing in strength and seeking their place in the sun. Their economic success and rising power could contribute significantly to the health of an international system built on economic and political freedom. But it also could help unravel such a system. The authoritarian character of China and Russia already propels those countries to engage in behavior that undermines international security. Checking their harmful ambitions while promoting their transformation into decent and democratic political actors is a primary challenge facing any American leader.

At the other end of the spectrum are the relatively new dangers posed by transnational actors, terrorist groupings preeminent among them. Although the United States has made great strides over the past ten years in dismantling al Qaeda, radical Islam still poses a multifaceted challenge and direct threats to our homeland remain an omnipresent danger. Our friends and allies around the world also continue to be at risk. Jihadists are seeking to exploit fragile states across the world as safe havens from which to plan and launch attacks or to tip those nations into theocratic revolutions. In a world in which weapons of mass destruction can fall into the wrong hands, the United States faces a set of national security dilemmas that are as urgent as they are complex.

A broad arc of the world extending from Pakistan to Libya is today caught up in profound turmoil. Connecting East to West, this region is the hinge on which Eurasia turns; its geostrategic importance cannot be overstated. It holds immense deposits of carbon resources. It contains some of the world’s most important seafaring chokepoints, including the Suez Canal and the Straits of Hormuz. It is the seat of the world’s major faiths, with religious passions roiling vast masses of people. It holds populations striving to break free from the stasis of authoritarian rule. It holds other populations suffering under the boot of dictatorships and/or locked in sectarian strife. It contains states too weak to police or protect themselves. It is the world’s primary flash point for nuclear proliferation. It poses a constant risk of catastrophic war that could take millions of lives and plunge the world economy into chaos.

We must also contend with failed or failing states, like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and to an alarming degree, our southern neighbor Mexico. These are states with weak governance that are wracked by poverty, disease, internal strife, refugees, drugs, and organized crime. They are or can become safe-havens for terrorists, pirates, and other kinds of criminal networks. Their problems regularly spill across borders turning internal problems into regional and even global ones.

A special problem is posed by the rogue nations of the world: Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. Their interests and values are diametrically opposed to our own and they threaten international peace and security in numerous ways, including, as in the case of North Korea and Iran, by seeking nuclear weapons, or by harboring criminal networks, exporting weapons, and sponsoring terrorists. They deny their people the human dignity and well-being offered by economic opportunity and political freedom. They can be the source of intense regional conflict that can easily spread into a far larger arena and endanger the peace of the world.

How should we deal with these many varied dangers? In the highly dynamic realm of national security and foreign policy there are seldom easy answers. Discrete circumstances in disparate regions of the world demand different kinds of approaches. There is no silver bullet for the problem of securing the United States and protecting our interests around the world.

But there are competing visions, competing philosophies, that lead to very different prescriptions for our national-security dilemmas. Amid the multiplying dangers and the complex challenges, Mitt Romney would work to protect and advance America’s interests by employing all the instruments of national power at the president’s disposal. He will defend our country, defend our allies, and restore American leadership around the world. It is only American power — conceived in the broadest terms — that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies. Every American has a profound interest in global peace and prosperity. Our prosperity is tied to free markets and free trade. Our security is dependent on the security of Asia and Europe. We created this world order, and our well-being as a nation depends on preserving it against the many challenges it faces.

To that end, American strength will be brought to bear according to a set of guiding principles:

First […] The United States will clearly enunciate its interests and values. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs; neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. As the world’s greatest power, the United States will strive to set the international policy agenda, create a predictable economic and security environment that enables other countries to develop policies that are in conformity with our own, and minimize those occasions on which the United States is confronted by instability and surprise.

Second […] The United States will work vigorously to encourage all nations to develop modern and enduring governmental systems that foster the rule of law, protect human dignity, and defend the unalienable rights of man, including freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The path from authoritarianism to freedom and representative government is not always a straight line or an easy evolution, but history teaches that nations that share our values will be more reliable U.S. partners and will tend to stand together in pursuit of common security and shared prosperity.

Third, the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. In defending America’s national interest in a world of danger, the United States should always retain a powerful military capacity to defend itself and its allies. Resort to force is always the least desirable option, the costliest in resources and human life…The tools of “hard” and “soft” power must work together to be effective. They are complements not substitutes for one another.

Fourth, the United States will exercise leadership in multilateral organizations and alliances. American leadership lends credibility and breeds faith in the ultimate success of any action, facilitating the participation not only of allies but also of others who are sitting on the sidelines. American leadership will also focus multilateral institutions like the United Nations on achieving the substantive goals of democracy and human rights enshrined in their charters. Bodies like the United Nations tend to confuse process with substance, prizing the act of negotiating over the outcomes that negotiations can reach. Even worse, these organizations have become forums for the tantrums of tyrants and for airing of the world’s most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism. In the tradition of such U.N. ambassadors as Daniel P. Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick and John Bolton, the United States must fight to return these bodies to their proper role of promoting democracy, human rights, and a peaceful and prosperous world.