04:45 pm
A Reverse Nixon with a Half-Twist
When it comes to foreign policy, George W. Bush has managed to become the Bizarro Nixon.
Think about it. As Rick Perlstein notes in Nixonland,
[Nixon] explained [his] strategic rationale: I do not want to give the impression to the eight hundred million people of Communist China that they have no choice but to cooperate with the Soviet Union.” . . . China and Russia, as rivals, might someday compete for America’s favor by directing North Vietnam to reach a negotiated settlement.
Nixon understood that, in an era of waning American power (in the sense of a declining economy and the end of overwhelming American military superiority), he needed to prevent a Soviet-Chinese rapprochement. He recognized that, with U.S. troops pinned down in Vietnam, diplomatic audacity would have to replace more conventional projections of power. Triangulation was the key: play the Chinese off the Soviets, play the Soviets off the Chinese, and use both to secure as many American foreign policy goals as possible. He also realized that he couldn’t achieve any of this without making certain compromises — Taiwan in the case of the Chinese, the illusion of missile superiority in the case of the Soviet Union.
Contrast that with Bush, who seems determined to alienate as many countries as possible. He damns Russia for Georgia, China for a whole bunch of things, Iran for nukes, Venezuela for Chavez, and so on. The idealist in me appreciates his moral stances (even if it is wildly inconsistent with his Administration’s own human rights practices). But the realist recognizes that he’s succeeding in isolating the United States to a degree almost unprecedented in our history.
So here we are, thirty-odd years later, once again in an era of waning American superiority. American troops are pinned down, this time in Iraq and Afghanistan. The economy is in steep decline, except this time it is China rather than Japan challenging us. Our capacity to project American power is at best limited and at worst non-existent.
But instead of using diplomacy to protect American interests by making limited concessions to those who would like nothing better to contest our position in the world, Bush’s actions are driving other countries to unite against us.
What’s the opposite of triangulation? Pointillism? Whatever it’s called, even Nixon would have recognized it as both foolish and profoundly dangerous.