National summit 21st Century America – Reflections, Aspirations and Challenges Sydney December 2007 Contents From the ceo international security studies Robert O’Neill welcomed this change and called on Australia to respond by shouldering more of the defence burden. Princeton’s Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter argued for a new US foreign policy of ‘liberty under the law’ projecting externally the country’s core values. Lowy Institute head Allan Gyngell encouraged Australia to be give more effective voice to its distinctive views on matters of shared interest with the United States. he Centre’s inaugural National Summit brought together over three hundred Former Duke Dean William Chafe highlighted the From the CEO 1 Tacademic, business, government, media age-old American tension between freedom and and student leaders for three days of discussion race that he said has tended to curtail America’s Addresses and responses: on the contemporary United States, its global role effectiveness in global affairs. Sydney University and Australia-US relations. historian Stephen Robertson noted that America’s A tale of two Bush foreign policies 2 black-white racial dichotomy is now a trichotomy The program was rich and diverse, including: with the emergence of Latinos as the US’s largest presentations by journalist Paul Kelly and ethnic minority. Liberty under the law 10 author Don Watson, analysis of the competitive advantage of nations by Harvard Business For those of you who were able to attend the Race and freedom in America 18 School’s Richard Vietor, a 21st century America 2007 Summit, I am sure you will find this book a forum with students, release of the Centre’s wonderful memento. I encourage everyone else to Speakers and respondents 26 survey of Australians’ attitudes on America, get involved in the exciting work of the Centre. and networking for Australian academics in US studies. I look forward to seeing you all at our next Networking 34 Summit! This book highlights three American keynote Program 36 addresses and Australian responses. Participants 38 Berkeley’s Dean Michael Nacht said that Australia and the world should expect the foreign policy Sincerely yours, of the next US President to follow the more About the United States Studies Centre 42 nuanced and multilateral post-2006 trajectory of Professor Geoffrey Garrett the Bush administration. The doyen of Australian CEO, United States Studies Centre 21st Century America – Reflections, Aspirations and Challenges, Sydney, December 2007 1 A tale of two bush foreign policies Dean Michael Nacht Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley believe history will delineate between two ‘soft power’ were at best secondary or tertiary quite distinct periods in the foreign policy considerations. Cultural issues, even some of the I of President George W. Bush – from 9/11 trade issues, scientific and intellectual exchange, to late 2006; and the last two years of the Bush how people view them in the world—the Bush administration. The second period is proving White House really didn’t value these very much better for the world, and for America too. much. The US was so powerful militarily and The next administration, however, will not merely economically that the administration could seize be a continuation of this kinder, gentler Bush. the moment and dominate the world. Rather, I expect the next president, whoever it is, to emphasise collaboration with allies and 9/11 was an absolutely shattering experience, not tools other than military—political, economic, only for the American people, but particularly for diplomatic, energy—and to de-emphasise the the leadership of the US government. ideological approach of the Bush administration. I don’t think I can adequately convey to you how shook up, how affected to the core, our 9/11 was an absolutely leadership was by this attack. The top people in the new Bush administration viewed themselves shattering experience, as the adults of foreign policy, realpolitik tough not only for the American guys. Yet this unprecedented attack took place on their watch, and they were determined to do people, but particularly for whatever it took to ensure that it would never Michael Nacht the leadership of the US happen again. There were three different characteristics of the administration, and for many Americans more government Bush approach to foreign policy. generally, is almost a religion. If Clinton endorsed the Sunshine Policy between North and South The US practised a ‘my From 11 September 2001 to the congressional First, the US practised a ‘my way or the highway’ Korea, the Bush administration had to oppose it. way or the highway’ elections in November 2006, the White House belligerent unilateralism that was unprecedented If Clinton was spending a lot of time with Yasser decided that rather than build coalitions beyond since at least World War II. In addition there was Arafat, the new President wasn’t going to talk to belligerent unilateralism their base, they would instead deepen their base scepticism, and indeed sometimes a rejection, him. If Clinton said it’s cloudy outside, they’d say that was unprecedented – find more people who were like-minded. This of international treaties and international the sun is coming through. was true in domestic politics. organisations—a tremendous devaluing of these since at least World War II instruments. Finally, the less their policies seemed to work, the But I believe it held for foreign policy as well. The more determined the Bush administration was As a result, critics arose not only around the judgement was that the United States entered the Second, the administration practiced ABC, to stick to them—in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the world, and not only among the US Democrats, 21st century so absolutely preeminent in guns ‘Anything But Clinton’. Animosity towards Israeli/Palestinian issue and North Korea, and but even among Republican stalwarts. Things and butter that all the things Joseph Nye calls the Clintons for many people in the Bush with the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Kyoto treaties. were so bad that by the congressional elections 2 The United States Studies Centre National Summit 21st Century America – Reflections, Aspirations and Challenges, Sydney, December 2007 3 of 2006, President Bush had among the lowest The US’s tough line against North Korea only reclaimed control of both the House and Senate. sharing, or power sharing, or guaranteeing the ever approval ratings. provoked the further development of its nuclear The election was immediately followed by the rights of minorities. weapons program and the testing of a nuclear resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary The invasion of Afghanistan was brilliantly weapon, even though it was a very modest, of Defense. The US has also changed its policies regarding executed on a tactical level. But then resources incomplete and I think partially failed test. North Korea. There has been a much greater and attention were transferred to Iraq when that This came on top of another big change two emphasis on quiet diplomacy, not only in the country was invaded in early 2003. The net US policies only made Iran more belligerent, years earlier, when Condoleezza Rice moved Six Party talks but also bilaterally with the North effect has been a reconstitution of the Taliban rather than less. from National Security Adviser, where she had Koreans. This was absolutely off the table through and a security situation in Afghanistan that is toed the Cheney-Rumsfeld line, to Secretary of 2006. Now it’s part of the policy, and there is much worse than it’s been in quite some time Israeli-Palestinian tensions were left to fester State, where she became stronger and more some progress. – generating all kinds of secondary problems and the bottom line of that festering was a independent. When you are Secretary of State, with NATO, Australia and others who are in strengthening of Hamas and Hezbolah radicals she soon realised, you don’t accomplish things Afghanistan. and a weakening of the moderate leaders Abbas by bombing people; you accomplish things at the 2009 will likely witness a and Olmert. negotiating table. Hussein and his regime were both eliminated tremendous influx of new in Iraq. But this only triggered what amounts to Russia has shifted to a more authoritarian So in 2007 there was a new power axis in multiple civil wars in the country – Sunni-Shia, posture, in part due to the energy and the administration, Rice and new Secretary of diplomatic initiatives all Sunni-Sunni, Shia-Shia, Sunni-al-Qaeda, Syrians petrodollars Putin has to work with. This is Defense Robert Gates aligned against a now over the world, no matter and Iranians coming in. The American public, not directly Bush’s fault. But he exacerbated isolated Cheney. The Rice-Gates view has and I think the world public, couldn’t fathom tensions with Russia by abruptly ending the US become increasingly influential: we have to who is President what was going on, other than the fact that every commitments in the ABM Treaty and then by expand the instruments of power; we have to day, Iraqis and Americans were getting killed. deploying radar and interceptors in countries be engaged much more diplomatically. Gates, bordering on Russia. Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration, The first US brokered Israeli-Palestinian direct went so far as to say that the answer to Islamic negotiation of the entire Bush administration Bush foreign policy, Where were the successes in the first part of the fundamentalism is ‘soft power’. I doubt Joseph took place recently. It is hard to be optimistic Bush administration? They were in this part of Nye could believe his ears. about the peace process, especially given the mark II, has basically the world – a very stable relationship with Japan; weakness of the two leaders, Abbas and Olmert.