Three recent articles got me thinking about the realities of U.S. foreign policy in an era of a contracting economy and growing government debt.

First, a story from today’s NYT:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the countries of Eastern Europe have emerged as critical allies of the United States in the region, embracing American-style capitalism and borrowing heavily from Western European banks to finance their rise.

Now the bill is coming due.

The development boom that turned Poland, Hungary and other former Soviet satellites into some of Europe’s hottest markets is on the verge of going bust, raising worrisome new risks for the global financial system that may ricochet back to the United States. . . .

Add to that a new worry: International finance officials fret that the worst regional economic crisis since the Berlin Wall came down could set off a contagion among the region’s currencies, with echoes of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. Then, emerging markets like Thailand borrowed in foreign currencies to fuel growth, but suddenly owed more than they could afford to pay back once their own currencies lost value.

Next, the lead editorial in today’s WaPo:

Clinton says she was only “stating the obvious” when she played down the importance of U.S. pressure on China about human rights issues during a visit there over the weekend. In fact, her comments understated the significance of what a secretary of state says about such matters, and how those statements might affect the lives of people fighting for freedom of expression, religious rights and other basic liberties in countries such as China. . . .

Ms. Clinton’s suggestion that U.S. advocacy for human rights might “interfere” with cooperation on other issues is equally misguided. Over many years China has proved ready to work with the United States on issues where it sees an interest in doing so, regardless of disputes over human rights. Playing down those concerns won’t change Beijing’s stance on North Korea or increase its willingness to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally, yesterday’s WSJ:

U.S. officials are scrambling to assert that the Obama administration hasn’t softened U.S. policy toward Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez recently won a controversial referendum allowing him to run for office as many times as he wants.

Last week, acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid surprised some observers when he said that Venezuela’s election “was held consistent with democratic principles,” though he also mentioned some “troubling reports of intimidation of opponents.” . . .

U.S. officials say they continue to be very concerned about Venezuela, one of the leading suppliers of oil to the U.S.  “The state of health of democracy in Venezuela is not very good,” said a State Department official, adding that the U.S. also continued to be concerned that Venezuela’s continuing support for Colombia’s drug-funded communist guerrillas is undermining democracy in the region. “There’s no change in policy,” he added.

So what do these three stories have in common?  The United States is increasingly unable to project its power abroad.  That may come as no surprise, but consider this:  traditionally, there are three ways the U.S. influences the world — military might, economic prosperity, and soft power (or “smart power,” to use Hillary’s term).

For the first time since the end of the Second World War, all three are in decline.  The military is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan; the economy is in the midst of a severe recession — one whose contagion continues to spread; and, thanks to the Bush Administration, the United States is more often viewed as part of the problem than it is the solution.

Yes, the election of President Obama has helped a little.  But no matter how effective Obama may be in terms of moral suasion, he can’t prevent — at least in the short term — the dramatic erosion of the American position around the world.

Unlike the Asian Financial Crisis back in the 1990s, we don’t have the ability to step in to save Eastern Europe’s crashing economies — we have to spend every dime we have to save our own.  We can’t raise human rights with China because we need their continued investment as well as their support on issues such as climate change and North Korea.  And we can’t isolate Chavez or even tell him to bugger off because we need Venezuela’s oil.

Let me be clear.  I’ve spent most of my career working on human rights and democracy issues.  I would hate to see Eastern Europe return to its days as a Russian plaything with predominantly authoritarian governments.  I’d like nothing more than for the U.S. to finda a peaceful way to end Chavez’s increasingly dictatorial rule.   And I was not at all happy with Hillary’s Kinsley gaffe.

But I’m not at all surprised about any of these developments. We no longer have the ability — and, I’m sure some would argue, the will — to have an impact on any of these developments.

For what it’s worth, the Post is correct in saying that we need to find a way to aid and support the nascent human rights movement in China — whose activists face constant harassment, house arrest, and often imprisonment.  In that context, Hillary’s words were particularly problematic.  But the reality is, at least for now, they also were accurate.

All of this points to the biggest difference between Obama’s foreign policy and that of his predecessor:  Bush pretended that the U.S. still enjoyed overwhelming power in the world, and thus could ignore what others thought.  In contrast, Obama realizes that the U.S. no longer can solve the world’s problems on its own and thus is making hard choices about what we can and cannot do.  Given a choice between pragmatism and idealism, pragmatism will have to win out, at least over the short run.

This may not be a welcome development, but it is the reality of where we are as a nation and as an actor on the world stage.

Welcome to the new realism.  It’s no longer about projecting power only when necessary.  It’s now about conserving power so as to influence a world increasingly untethered from American influence.

Related posts

• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• Systems Theory and U.S. Foreign Policy: Obama’s Trip to Europe
• Some Thoughts on Obama’s Speech
• Mike Posner to DRL?
• India-Pakistan: China, Obama,and the Specter of 1914