James Traub Outs the Closet Realists (Sort Of) Posted by David Shorr

As he launches a new column at ForeignPolicy.com, Jim Traub counts the many ways that the authors of current policy are muddleheaded and empty-handed -- particularly as they try to reach agreements with autocratic regimes. The strongest part of Traub's piece is the harsh bright light he shines on the trade-offs between the values agenda and other priorities. The rest of his argument, though, suffers from not being subjected to the same rigor of confronting real-life choices.

Traub's strongest point reaches a crescendo in the following passage:

Let us stipulate, then, that engagement is not quite so naive as it appears. But is it not, still, a realist bargain, trading away those universal values that the president so often evokes in the hopes of geostrategic wins, whether on Iran or climate change or the global economy?

"We're trying to say 'no,'" says SO [senior official] #2. "We're not going to accept that tradeoff. We're going to do this in parallel."

Okay, I'll cop to something. While false choices and caricatures are a staple and a curse of the American domestic political debate over foreign policy, I would admit there's a problem with asserting broadly (as politicians often do) a lack of any tension between values and interests. Yes, if we're honest, the pursuit of goals such as nonproliferation, reduced carbon emissions, or macroeconomic growth and balance all take up diplomatic bandwith that might be used for the values agenda. But does the trading off necessarily constitute "trading away?" Is this really enough to qualify someone, or an administration, as an ice-in-the-veins realist?

If we think about putting the utmost priority on the values agenda, it's the neocons, really, who focus so intently on other nations' domestic governance and regime character. Everyone else is indeed making choices about emphasis. In this light, maybe senior official #2 isn't crazy after all for talking about "doing this in parallel." If they've gone too far in betraying the values agenda, maybe people can make that case, but a trade-off is not the same as a binary either/or.

As I said, focusing on trade-offs is an ironic basis for criticizing the administration, because so much criticism . For one thing, it's as if we already have amnesia over the policy that came before, but more generally, the debate always elides the question of what's the alternative? So let me examine a few other slams that arise in Traub's column (and elsewhere).

Geostrategic wins. If there are trade-offs between values and nonpro, climate change, and the global economy, are they worth it? Are the priorities misplaced here? There has been a vigorous debate over whether to suspend nuclear negotiations with Iran and put our hopes in regime-change. I can't believe I have to keep saying this, but we just spent eight years pursuing capitulation rather than negotiation, and meanwhile the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs moved closer to nuclear weapons.

The Iran-for-Russia/China bait and switch. As advocates for engagement have directed focus toward Russia and China, this has been portrayed as settling for half a loaf -- as if Russia and China had nothing to do with Iran. That's a real head-scratcher for me. Just to be clear, the goal is still to ensure that Iran's nuclear program doesn't give them the bomb. International pressure was always highlighted as the diplomatic essence, and that means needing other key powers and not just ourselves. Once again, what's the alternative? Surely the current policy has put Iran under more pressure from more directions than the Bush-Cheney-Bolton policy; I know conservatives who have acknowleged this much.

Nothing for our troubles. Aside from the added pressures on Iran, there have been other fruits of engagement. Dramatically stronger sanctions on North Korea, for one. Chinese economic stimulus, for another. And new Chinese commitments on climate change that, while limited and disappointing, go well beyond anything prior.

Nuance and complexity. Okay, what is it we want? "You're with us or against us," or dealing with the real world in its messiness? Do we think the world isn't complicated? Which leads me to the last rap...

What does 'engagement' mean any way? A wise former colleague used to say that our problem in foreign policy is that we often treat other nations as mere objects of our policy, forgetting that they are subjects of their own policy. This was an enormous blind spot of the previous administration, which believed that because of American military strength and inherent moral rightness, all the United States had to do was make demands of others. I feel like this is a lingering blind spot of the current debate and critiques of the current policy. The fact of the matter is that the success of our policy does not depend only on our own choices. Iranian leaders have a say in what happens with their nuclear program. Frankly I think the current policy is less naive about this than the criticisms are.

And that is the essence of engagement. It's a foreign policy approach that rolls up our sleeves for the dirty work of trying to accomplish our international aims. It recognizes how many different players with different interests have to be aligned to get anything done. Is this really so obscure or misguided?

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Surely the current policy has put Iran under more pressure from more directions than the Bush-Cheney-Bolton policy

What pressures?
*Iran is successfully dealing with thirty years of US sanctions. They have been an abject failure.
*Iran is the big winner of the US fiasco in Iraq, which was Iran's arch-enemy and is now a close ally.
* Attempts to get further UNSC sanctions are off the table, Russia saying nyet and China bu shih.
* Iran's nuclear program has been continually endorsed by the 125-nation NAM.
*The IAEA has again verified that Iran is not diverting uranium to weapons programs.
*The US has stopped claiming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and that the only US objective is to get Iran to decide against such a program, which Iran has apparently already done. In other words, lots of talk.
*Iran continues to export large amounts of oil to Japan, China and India, as well as to others, oil they need for economic growth (a current stranger in the US).
*Iran is talking like it is in the ME catbird seat -- and who can argue with them?

What pressures?

[hilzoy]

Um: is there some reason why reducing carbon emissions and nuclear non-proliferation are not part of "the values agenda"? Likewise, any version of economic growth that actually benefits ordinary people?

[David Shorr]

Hilzoy-- Thanks for that point. Probably too gentle of me to let the democracy spreaders have proprietary rights over the word 'values.'

[acekards]

Hi,
I had heard that Schwarzenegger and Pataki are already talking about hooking up the Northeast's power plant emissions allowances market with the cap-and-trade system that California has begun developing.

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[bvlgari watches]

I am so with you FRANCK MULLER Watch

[sesli sohbet]

Thank You Editors..sesli sohbet sesli chat

[sesli sohbet]

is there some reason why reducing carbon emissions and nuclear non-proliferation are not part of "the values agenda"? Likewise, any version of economic growth that actually benefits ordinary people?
sesli chat sesli sohbet