The passions aroused by the attempt to extradite Augusto Pinochet highlight the many unresolved issues in the movement to enforce global justice. Widespread agreement that human rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts. Universal jurisdiction risks creating universal tyranny -- that of judges.
Henry Kissinger's Does America Need a Foreign Policy? warns that Washington could become an overly dogmatic superpower. For the new century he recommends returning to the oldest foreign policy of all: maintaining regional balances of power.
After Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election, a new political force -- the neoconservatives, former anti-Nixon liberals now bent on total victory over the Soviet Union -- emerged to undermine his diplomacy. Nixon and his heir, Gerald Ford, sought to carefully wear the Soviets down, but the neocons yearned to vanquish communism with a burst of ideological elan. The new right's insistence on smearing detente as appeasement led them to ignore subtle Soviet encroachments and abandon Ford when he urged Congress to aid Indochina and Angola. The neocons undercut the real foreign policy debate, which was between the White House and the liberals.
The last volume of Henry A. Kissinger's memoirs offers a fascinating -- if unwittingly revealing -- self-portrait of detente's architect during the gloomy Ford era.
George Kennan’s "X" article, published in these pages more than 45 years ago, outlined for the United States a "doctrine of perpetual struggle" against communist ideology. The "containment" strategy optimistically assigned the American people the task of redeeming their Soviet rival. As long as the Kremlin remained wedded to its ideology, negotiation was futile. The struggle could only end with the collapse and conversion of the Soviet system. Critics assailed the policy as too global, reactive and moralistic for a nation possessed of no authority to undertake a crusade. Containment nonetheless guided American policy, and Kennan came closest, and earliest, in his prediction of the fate that would befall Soviet power.
The West must change its grand strategy in the face of changing Soviet presence in the world order. "Passivity or -- worse -- a posture of delayed and uncoordinated reaction to Soviet initiatives would enable the Kremlin to define the East-West agenda and serve primarily Soviet interests". Soviet reformism is driven by a sense of approaching crisis, and is ready to accept fundamental changes in domestic and foreign policy. Nevertheless, the USSR will maintain the contest with the USA where it can: "certain aspects of current Soviet policy, especially in Europe, are consistent with this long-term objective". The democracies must learn to cope with the Soviet flurry of unilateral initiatives, and to sift the genuine concessions from the propaganda. Reviews the issues in (1) strategic arms control, recommending a greater attention to linkage with larger security policy goals (2) the future of Eastern Europe, recommending the devising of "a category of association with the European Community based on article 238 of the Treaty of Rome" (3) the nature, extent and timing of the economic aid which might be extended to the USSR to promote desirable reform (4) encouraging an acceptable Soviet policy towards the Asia-Pacific region (5) human rights. Predicts that "the competitive relationship between East and West will not disappear... an overall reconciliation of conflicting interests is still a long-term objective". Sets out various 'checkpoints' for assessing Western progress in achieving a more conciliatory foreign policy in these areas. This portrayal of Soviet state action and interests by three top-flight statesmen of the non-communist world, is one of organic and well-integrated policy, carefully calculated to retain maximum advantage in an adverse strategic situation. It shows no anticipation of internal instability, even as late as mid-1989. Those political scientists anguished at the 'failure' of their discipline to anticipate the Soviet collapse can draw some comfort from this equally miserable performance.
If the USA is to sustain its role in the world, it needs a bipartisan foreign policy. "There is a strategic opportunity for a significant improvement in Soviet-American relations", while NATO needs redefinition as a guard against utopianism and in the light of economic integration in Europe. Also notes the US budget problem and relations with Japan and China. In the Middle East, supports guaranteed Israeli and Palestine states. Reviews pan-American issues. In general calls for "more selective and collaborative strategies based on new realities". Former US secretaries of state. The footnotes indicate the points on which the authors disagree, viz (1) the future of SDI (2) directions of arms control in the future (3) the value of an international conference on the Middle East.
The peace negotiations in Paris have been marked by the classic Vietnamese syndrome: optimism alternating with bewilderment; euphoria giving way to frustration. The halt to the bombing produced another wave of high hope. Yet it was followed almost immediately by the dispute with Saigon over its participation in the talks. The merits of this issue aside, we must realize that a civil war which has torn a society for twenty years and which has involved the great powers is unlikely to be settled in a single dramatic stroke. Even if there were mutual trust-a commodity not in excessive supply- the complexity of the issues and the difficulty of grasping their interrelationship would make for complicated negotiations. Throughout the war, criteria by which to measure progress have been hard to come by; this problem has continued during the negotiations. The dilemma is that almost any statement about Viet Nam is likely to be true; unfortunately, truth does not guarantee relevance.
For several years now disputes have rent the Atlantic Alliance. They have focused on such issues as nuclear strategy and control, the organization of Europe and the nature of an Atlantic Community. However, the most fundamental issue in Atlantic relationships is raised by two questions not unlike those which each Western society has had to deal with in its domestic affairs: How much unity do we want? How much pluralism can we stand? Too formalistic a conception of unity risks destroying the political will of the members of the Community. Too absolute an insistence on national particularity must lead to a fragmentation of the common effort.
In a major address on July 4, 1962, the President called for a partnership between the United States and Europe. With the passage of the Trade Bill this "great design" seems to have come a step closer. To many, the Atlantic Community beckons as the great hope of the 1960s. The possibility of establishing a vital Atlantic system is indeed one of the great opportunities of our time. It may well be that to future historians it will appear the distinctive feature of our decade, far transcending in importance the crises which form the headlines of the day.
The recent meeting of NATO defense and foreign ministers at Athens ended with the usual proclamations of Allied unity. A great deal was made of the United States commitment of five-and later more-Polaris submarines to NATO. Yet the significance of the meeting went far beyond this largely symbolic gesture. The Athens conference marked the point at which a reassessment of NATO strategy could no longer be avoided. It underlined the urgent need to resolve the debate of the past years about the relative role of nuclear and conventional forces, the relationship of deterrence to strategy and the control and use of nuclear weapons.
