Saturday, November 06, 2004
By invitation: Richard Haass The world on his desk
Nov 4th 2004 NEW YORK From The Economist print edition
A briefing for the weary winner from the man in charge of policy and planning at the State Department in 2001-03
AS GEORGE BUSH contemplates his second term, he faces far more challenges, and more difficult ones, than he did four years ago. The first reason for this is the objective state of the world, with a host of problems, from Iraq to North Korea to HIV/AIDS, demanding urgent attention. The second is the current condition of the United States. America remains the world's pre-eminent actor, but it is also stretched militarily, in debt financially, divided domestically and unpopular internationally. It all makes one wonder why Mr Bush seemed so keen to keep the job.
The United States is engaged in at least three conflicts. First, terrorism. Although al-Qaeda's original membership may be diminished, some of its leaders (including Osama bin Laden himself) remain at large and many have joined them. Mr Bush may find himself dealing with groups that possess not just box-cutters and access to aircraft, but nuclear material or, worse, a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, America and its foreign allies are continuing, slowly and against resistance, to train Iraqis to look after their own security. Achieving stability will not be easy. Nor will conducting elections that will be accepted by Iraqis and the world as legitimate.
In Afghanistan, the task of creating a modern state still suffers from the initial decision to limit America's role in nation-building. The central government is weak, warlords are strong and poppy production is at record levels. It is unlikely that this effort, any more than those against terrorism or in Iraq, will be completed before Mr Bush leaves office.
The biggest challenges, however, may lie elsewhere, in North Korea and Iran. North Korea reportedly possesses between six and ten nuclear weapons, or at least the fuel to make that many. Iran is farther along on the path to enriching uranium than anyone knew. Either regime, if nuclear-armed, could prove the tipping-point for its region as neighbours decide to follow suit. Either regime might also slip fissile material to terrorists. Mr Bush will have to decide in a hurry what he can tolerate and what he cannot.
Then there is the matter of Israelis and Palestinians. Where there was once a “peace process”, there is now little peace and even less process. Mr Bush will need to figure out what the United States can do to make sure that Ariel Sharon's policy of Israeli disengagement from Gaza does not become Gaza only, and that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere.
Darfur is a humanitarian tragedy that continues to unfold while the world debates whether what is going on is genocide. The question is what more the United States and others are prepared to do, whether to stop the killing or to assist those whose lives have been devastated.
Turning to the major powers, the issue with most potential to cause real harm is China-Taiwan. There, it is getting harder for America to balance its “One China” policy with its security obligations to Taipei. If Taiwan's leaders insist on more trappings of statehood, China may go to war. Coming to Taiwan's defence could well poison America's relations with one of the world's emerging powers, and undermine chances of an acceptable resolution of the North Korea problem; not doing so could raise fundamental questions about America's reliability, and give the impression that China had replaced the United States as the region's dominant force.
Russia is a problem largely of its own making. It is fighting a costly and possibly losing war in Chechnya; alcohol and AIDS are ravaging the population; and democracy is being rolled back as Vladimir Putin takes advantage of high oil prices and fears of terrorism to consolidate his rule. But the United States needs Russian oil, as well as Russia's co-operation to deal with Iran.
One last set of challenges requires a mention. Call them (as Donald Rumsfeld might) the unknown unknowns. The most obvious is another massive terrorist attack that sets America reeling, economically, psychologically and politically. There could be assassinations; imagine the difficulties of building Afghanistan without Hamid Karzai, Pakistan without Pervez Musharraf, or Iraq without not just Iyad Allawi but much of his team. The departure of Fidel Castro, too, though hardly a cause for grief, could lead to instability that some in the United States might find it hard to ignore.
The stretched superpower
Tackling such an array of challenges would be difficult if America was in the best of shape. But it is not. The economy is growing at a reasonable clip, but the foundation of this growth is vulnerable. When Mr Bush ran for president four years ago, the budget was in surplus to the tune of $236 billion; now the annual deficit is more than $400 billion. Calls to reduce growth in federal spending will put pressure on funds available for defence, foreign aid, HIV/AIDS and homeland security.
Add the fact that the current-account deficit is expected to be more than $600 billion this year, or around 5.5% of GDP. All this leaves the economy at the mercy of bankers in Asia and elsewhere who have accumulated massive dollar holdings. As Herb Stein said, that which can't go on forever, won't. A day of reckoning could well come over the next four years. If it does, Alan Greenspan or his successor will have to put up interest rates sharply.
The deficit has grown so much, in part, because of the cost of defence and homeland security. Related to this is the fact that the United States is so active militarily. Some 135,000 troops are in Iraq, another 15,000 in Afghanistan. Reserve call-ups are being extended. The United States would be hard pressed to meet the demands of a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Preventive strikes on a would-be nuclear state are one thing, but it is difficult to see how the United States could take on a full-scale war with even a medium power at this point.
Making matters worse is America's energy dependency. The United States now imports some 12m barrels a day, more than half the oil it consumes. There is no reason to believe that the oil price will soon come down from its $50-a-barrel perch. Besides, the balance between world supply and demand is sufficiently tight that it would not take much disruption in a medium producer (say, Venezuela or Nigeria), not to mention Saudi Arabia, for the price to spike through the roof.
It will not be all doom and gloom, of course. Relations overall with the other big powers—China, Japan, Russia, India—have never been better. In addition, India and Pakistan have moved back from the brink, and links between the two are growing. East Asia is on the economic rebound. South Africa is faring relatively well, as is much of Latin America.
The state of America, too, should be put in perspective. For all its weaknesses, it remains the world's dominant power. Americans support an active world role, despite the costs. Mr Bush could benefit considerably from simply adjusting the tone and style of his diplomacy.
What to focus on
What should rise to the top of Mr Bush's agenda? Let me suggest nine items.
Success in Iraq. This need not require transforming Iraq into a shining city on a hill. It does mean making it a functioning country. Elections will have to be held as scheduled, and the training of Iraqi security forces accelerated. It may be both desirable and necessary to increase American troop levels in the run-up to January's elections, coupling any such increases with an announcement that reductions would follow the vote. America would also be wise to declare publicly its lack of interest in holding on to any bases in Iraq once its troops depart. To be avoided are an arbitrary exit date that would require forces to leave without establishing relative stability, and any appearance that the United States is being driven out of Iraq as it was out of Somalia.
Engage North Korea and Iran. The United States, with others, should make comprehensive offers to both North Korea and Iran. In both cases, the offer should include security assurances and political and economic incentives in exchange for giving up nuclear ambitions. It should also indicate the price to be paid if the world's concerns are not satisfied. Two other good ideas: accelerate efforts to secure Russia's “loose nukes”, and get the nuclear haves to agree that no other country should be able to gain access to nuclear fuel which could be used as, or in, a weapon.
Revive Middle East peace efforts. Making sure that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza goes ahead and leaves something stable in its wake will require American, European and Egyptian collaboration. Ensuring that diplomacy begins rather than ends with Gaza will require America to speak out about where peace efforts should lead, and show greater commitment to getting there. Appointing a senior envoy who clearly enjoys White House backing would be a start.
Prevent a Taiwan crisis. This means continued pressure on Taiwan's leaders not to go too far, along with continued warnings to China's leaders to pursue their goals peacefully. Both should be left in no doubt that they would not benefit from a crisis of their own making.
Drive Doha. A new WTO agreement would be a boon for both America's economy and the world's. America should set an example by eliminating all its remaining subsidies, quotas and tariffs.
Help Darfur. America should make intelligence, logistics, training and equipment available to the African Union, and push for targeted sanctions against Sudan's leaders.
Repair transatlantic ties. Further continental drifting apart will serve neither America's nor Europe's interests. Alas, there is no quick fix available. Europeans (read French and Germans or, better yet, NATO) must find some way to help meaningfully in Iraq; a failure there would do them as little good as it would the rest of the civilised world.
Stay the course on terrorism. Continue to go after terrorists and frustrate their recruitment efforts, but also keep investing in homeland security. Lowering America's profile in Iraq will help, as will raising it on the Palestinian issue. The United States should also stick with efforts to promote political, economic and education reform in the Arab world.
Get your house in order. The United States will not remain a great power for long if the economic foundation of its power erodes. It must rein in domestic spending, including tackling entitlements. America must also develop a serious and responsible energy policy. The only debate needed is over the right mix of mandated efficiency improvements, investment in alternative fuels and (get the children out of the room) new taxes.
All these challenges will add up to a more restrained America. New wars of choice are less likely; Mr Bush will have his hands full. Many around the world will no doubt welcome this. But they should be careful what they wish for. The world is a very dangerous place and, unlike the economic marketplace, there is no invisible hand making sure all turns out for the best. As Mr Bush well knows, only the United States can fulfil this role.
AP
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His next book, “The Opportunity”, will be published in the spring
Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Nov 4th 2004 NEW YORK From The Economist print edition
A briefing for the weary winner from the man in charge of policy and planning at the State Department in 2001-03
AS GEORGE BUSH contemplates his second term, he faces far more challenges, and more difficult ones, than he did four years ago. The first reason for this is the objective state of the world, with a host of problems, from Iraq to North Korea to HIV/AIDS, demanding urgent attention. The second is the current condition of the United States. America remains the world's pre-eminent actor, but it is also stretched militarily, in debt financially, divided domestically and unpopular internationally. It all makes one wonder why Mr Bush seemed so keen to keep the job.
The United States is engaged in at least three conflicts. First, terrorism. Although al-Qaeda's original membership may be diminished, some of its leaders (including Osama bin Laden himself) remain at large and many have joined them. Mr Bush may find himself dealing with groups that possess not just box-cutters and access to aircraft, but nuclear material or, worse, a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, America and its foreign allies are continuing, slowly and against resistance, to train Iraqis to look after their own security. Achieving stability will not be easy. Nor will conducting elections that will be accepted by Iraqis and the world as legitimate.
In Afghanistan, the task of creating a modern state still suffers from the initial decision to limit America's role in nation-building. The central government is weak, warlords are strong and poppy production is at record levels. It is unlikely that this effort, any more than those against terrorism or in Iraq, will be completed before Mr Bush leaves office.
The biggest challenges, however, may lie elsewhere, in North Korea and Iran. North Korea reportedly possesses between six and ten nuclear weapons, or at least the fuel to make that many. Iran is farther along on the path to enriching uranium than anyone knew. Either regime, if nuclear-armed, could prove the tipping-point for its region as neighbours decide to follow suit. Either regime might also slip fissile material to terrorists. Mr Bush will have to decide in a hurry what he can tolerate and what he cannot.
Then there is the matter of Israelis and Palestinians. Where there was once a “peace process”, there is now little peace and even less process. Mr Bush will need to figure out what the United States can do to make sure that Ariel Sharon's policy of Israeli disengagement from Gaza does not become Gaza only, and that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere.
Darfur is a humanitarian tragedy that continues to unfold while the world debates whether what is going on is genocide. The question is what more the United States and others are prepared to do, whether to stop the killing or to assist those whose lives have been devastated.
Turning to the major powers, the issue with most potential to cause real harm is China-Taiwan. There, it is getting harder for America to balance its “One China” policy with its security obligations to Taipei. If Taiwan's leaders insist on more trappings of statehood, China may go to war. Coming to Taiwan's defence could well poison America's relations with one of the world's emerging powers, and undermine chances of an acceptable resolution of the North Korea problem; not doing so could raise fundamental questions about America's reliability, and give the impression that China had replaced the United States as the region's dominant force.
Russia is a problem largely of its own making. It is fighting a costly and possibly losing war in Chechnya; alcohol and AIDS are ravaging the population; and democracy is being rolled back as Vladimir Putin takes advantage of high oil prices and fears of terrorism to consolidate his rule. But the United States needs Russian oil, as well as Russia's co-operation to deal with Iran.
One last set of challenges requires a mention. Call them (as Donald Rumsfeld might) the unknown unknowns. The most obvious is another massive terrorist attack that sets America reeling, economically, psychologically and politically. There could be assassinations; imagine the difficulties of building Afghanistan without Hamid Karzai, Pakistan without Pervez Musharraf, or Iraq without not just Iyad Allawi but much of his team. The departure of Fidel Castro, too, though hardly a cause for grief, could lead to instability that some in the United States might find it hard to ignore.
The stretched superpower
Tackling such an array of challenges would be difficult if America was in the best of shape. But it is not. The economy is growing at a reasonable clip, but the foundation of this growth is vulnerable. When Mr Bush ran for president four years ago, the budget was in surplus to the tune of $236 billion; now the annual deficit is more than $400 billion. Calls to reduce growth in federal spending will put pressure on funds available for defence, foreign aid, HIV/AIDS and homeland security.
Add the fact that the current-account deficit is expected to be more than $600 billion this year, or around 5.5% of GDP. All this leaves the economy at the mercy of bankers in Asia and elsewhere who have accumulated massive dollar holdings. As Herb Stein said, that which can't go on forever, won't. A day of reckoning could well come over the next four years. If it does, Alan Greenspan or his successor will have to put up interest rates sharply.
The deficit has grown so much, in part, because of the cost of defence and homeland security. Related to this is the fact that the United States is so active militarily. Some 135,000 troops are in Iraq, another 15,000 in Afghanistan. Reserve call-ups are being extended. The United States would be hard pressed to meet the demands of a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Preventive strikes on a would-be nuclear state are one thing, but it is difficult to see how the United States could take on a full-scale war with even a medium power at this point.
Making matters worse is America's energy dependency. The United States now imports some 12m barrels a day, more than half the oil it consumes. There is no reason to believe that the oil price will soon come down from its $50-a-barrel perch. Besides, the balance between world supply and demand is sufficiently tight that it would not take much disruption in a medium producer (say, Venezuela or Nigeria), not to mention Saudi Arabia, for the price to spike through the roof.
It will not be all doom and gloom, of course. Relations overall with the other big powers—China, Japan, Russia, India—have never been better. In addition, India and Pakistan have moved back from the brink, and links between the two are growing. East Asia is on the economic rebound. South Africa is faring relatively well, as is much of Latin America.
The state of America, too, should be put in perspective. For all its weaknesses, it remains the world's dominant power. Americans support an active world role, despite the costs. Mr Bush could benefit considerably from simply adjusting the tone and style of his diplomacy.
What to focus on
What should rise to the top of Mr Bush's agenda? Let me suggest nine items.
Success in Iraq. This need not require transforming Iraq into a shining city on a hill. It does mean making it a functioning country. Elections will have to be held as scheduled, and the training of Iraqi security forces accelerated. It may be both desirable and necessary to increase American troop levels in the run-up to January's elections, coupling any such increases with an announcement that reductions would follow the vote. America would also be wise to declare publicly its lack of interest in holding on to any bases in Iraq once its troops depart. To be avoided are an arbitrary exit date that would require forces to leave without establishing relative stability, and any appearance that the United States is being driven out of Iraq as it was out of Somalia.
Engage North Korea and Iran. The United States, with others, should make comprehensive offers to both North Korea and Iran. In both cases, the offer should include security assurances and political and economic incentives in exchange for giving up nuclear ambitions. It should also indicate the price to be paid if the world's concerns are not satisfied. Two other good ideas: accelerate efforts to secure Russia's “loose nukes”, and get the nuclear haves to agree that no other country should be able to gain access to nuclear fuel which could be used as, or in, a weapon.
Revive Middle East peace efforts. Making sure that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza goes ahead and leaves something stable in its wake will require American, European and Egyptian collaboration. Ensuring that diplomacy begins rather than ends with Gaza will require America to speak out about where peace efforts should lead, and show greater commitment to getting there. Appointing a senior envoy who clearly enjoys White House backing would be a start.
Prevent a Taiwan crisis. This means continued pressure on Taiwan's leaders not to go too far, along with continued warnings to China's leaders to pursue their goals peacefully. Both should be left in no doubt that they would not benefit from a crisis of their own making.
Drive Doha. A new WTO agreement would be a boon for both America's economy and the world's. America should set an example by eliminating all its remaining subsidies, quotas and tariffs.
Help Darfur. America should make intelligence, logistics, training and equipment available to the African Union, and push for targeted sanctions against Sudan's leaders.
Repair transatlantic ties. Further continental drifting apart will serve neither America's nor Europe's interests. Alas, there is no quick fix available. Europeans (read French and Germans or, better yet, NATO) must find some way to help meaningfully in Iraq; a failure there would do them as little good as it would the rest of the civilised world.
Stay the course on terrorism. Continue to go after terrorists and frustrate their recruitment efforts, but also keep investing in homeland security. Lowering America's profile in Iraq will help, as will raising it on the Palestinian issue. The United States should also stick with efforts to promote political, economic and education reform in the Arab world.
Get your house in order. The United States will not remain a great power for long if the economic foundation of its power erodes. It must rein in domestic spending, including tackling entitlements. America must also develop a serious and responsible energy policy. The only debate needed is over the right mix of mandated efficiency improvements, investment in alternative fuels and (get the children out of the room) new taxes.
All these challenges will add up to a more restrained America. New wars of choice are less likely; Mr Bush will have his hands full. Many around the world will no doubt welcome this. But they should be careful what they wish for. The world is a very dangerous place and, unlike the economic marketplace, there is no invisible hand making sure all turns out for the best. As Mr Bush well knows, only the United States can fulfil this role.
AP
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His next book, “The Opportunity”, will be published in the spring
Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
