SUBSCRIBE TO THE NIXON CENTER EMAIL BULLETIN

Program Brief, vol. 7, #15
© The Nixon Center 2001

"U.S. Foreign Policy: How Much Change Is Possible? How Much Is Desirable?"
A Presentation by Richard N. Haass
Director, Policy Planning Staff, Department of State

Speaking at a recent Nixon Center seminar, Ambassador Richard N. Haass expressed optimism about the maneuvering room available to the Bush Administration in setting U.S. foreign policy. Haass, who serves as Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, argued that due to favorable conditions domestically and to a "fairly benign" international environment, the U.S. currently enjoys an unprecedented capacity to be flexible in its foreign policy. Nixon Center President Dimitri K. Simes moderated the discussion.

Considerable Change Is Possible

Contrary to what some believe, Haass argued, last year’s contested presidential election has not undermined the administration’s ability to conduct foreign policy. In fact, he said, since foreign policy was hardly debated during the presidential campaign, the President is relatively unconstrained. Low levels of media and public interest in foreign policy have given the administration "more room to operate" as well. Haass added that despite the magnified voices of very focused interest groups, the administration is "freed up" because there are "no powerful domestic forces" seeking to shape U.S. policy.

Similarly, Haass said, the administration has significant flexibility internationally because of America’s unique international role. In his view, the United States enjoys additional latitude in setting its foreign policy because it currently faces no hostile major powers or coalitions of states. Finally, he said, the spread of democratic practices and market-based economies has strengthened America’s international position.

Old Problems, New Problems

Issues inherited from previous administrations, which Haass called "old problems," included instability in the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, Iraq, and more recently Colombia. Though he considered change highly desirable in all of these regions, he was not optimistic that significant change will occur soon. Haass argued that the administration had already succeeded to some extent on Iraq, however; U.S. efforts to target economic sanctions more effectively had undercut Russian and regional criticism of American policy, he said.

Haass appeared more optimistic about the administration’s new initiatives. He specifically cited increased attention to the Western Hemisphere, trade, a new nuclear strategic framework with Russia, and global issues. In the context of the administration’s focus on the Western Hemisphere, Haass emphasized the importance of securing Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for President Bush as he seeks to expand economic development and prosperity. He considered TPA and immigration policy to be central to U.S. policy in the region. More broadly, Haass explained that international trade will be a leading priority of the administration.

Describing efforts to develop a new strategic framework vis-à-vis Russia, Haass explained the basis of the administration’s skepticism about new arms control negotiations with Russia. Officials are concerned that negotiations take too long, he said. Haass added that in his view formal treaties are ill-suited to issues like missile defense, where there is considerable uncertainty. He argued that other types of agreements could be more effective so long as they provided predictability and transparency.

Haass indicated that the administration is giving serious attention to global climate change and the spread of disease including HIV/AIDS. He specifically mentioned that the Policy Planning Staff will have a new full-time member working exclusively on infectious diseases. He noted, however, that international cooperation is essential in addressing these problems.

Key Relationships

Haass next identified key U.S. relationships in which the Bush Administration feels change is both possible and desirable, including China, Russia, Europe and India. With respect to China, Haass argued that the restructuring of Sino-American relations after the Cold War had been "interrupted" by China’s 1989 suppression of protesters on Tiananmen Square. The relationship has subsequently moved on to a different trajectory and has not yet fully incorporated the realities of the post-Cold War era. Despite continuing tension in the relationship, Haass said, he is persuaded that Beijing is interested in constructive ties with Washington.

Haass said he was "mildly optimistic" that the U.S. would succeed in developing a new strategic framework with Russia. He asserted that the Bush administration is making an investment in relations with Moscow and that the mutual agenda is broad, with special attention going to Iraq, Iran, and NATO, in addition to nuclear talks. Haass was supportive of European "consolidation," as he called it, and argued that NATO and EU enlargement and the resolution of conflicts in the Balkans could "free up" Europe to devote greater attention to other important international issues.

According to Haass, the United States must treat India as an emerging great power and accordingly pay greater attention to it. In this context he saw the Clinton Administration’s heightened focus on India during its last year in office—including the former President’s trip to India in March 2000—as an important foundation on which to build.

Constraints

Notwithstanding his general optimism, Haass acknowledged that there are limits to America’s capabilities. The United States must cooperate closely with others to achieve some key objectives, he said, especially with respect to transnational issues such as trade, proliferation, terrorism, and climate change. In addition, many decisions affecting the U.S. are made elsewhere. For example, Washington has no choice but to respond to economic crises in key regions.

He also acknowledged that differing views within the administration have slowed the development of policy in some areas. Thus the U.S. is currently unable to offer policy alternatives on some complicated global issues such as climate change. However, Haass does not view internal differences in opinion and approach as a problem. Instead, he sees them as contributing to a balanced and well-developed foreign policy.

Haass admitted that the Bush Administration itself has not yet fully defined positions on some issues; needless to say, this limits America’s ability to act.

This Program Brief was prepared by Nixon Center Intern Rodolfo Neirotti.