A New Americanism

[T]here exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government necessarily depends upon the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture, the ancient laws and the material circumstances of a people, and all these things vary from land to land and age to age. The blunders other nations make are not ours to correct. And our moralistic policy of imposing sanctions on tiny tyrannies like Haiti and Myanamar, while we make no demands of the mighty Middle Kingdom, is cowardly and contemptible. When the elected mayor of our own capital city has to be virtually deposed in the name of good government, we should show more patience with foreign friends who fall short of the exacting standards of Clintonian democracy. My friends, a presidential election should offer the nation a choice of destinies. But on all the great foreign policy issues—from moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, to undeclared wars in the Balkans, to shoveling out billions in IMF loans and foreign aid to wastrel regimes—our Republican elite offers only a bellicose echo. Bush, Gore, Bradley, and McCain, they are all on one side of this great debate about America’s destiny; we alone are on the other. What would a foreign policy rooted in our history, the wisdom of our Fathers, and the national interest look like? Specifically, while America should restate to the world its iron resolve that never again will a hostile power be allowed to overrun our ancestral home, we will cease to smother Europe. It is time we ended our reflexive opposition to every new idea advanced by the nations of Europe to build their own pillar of Western defense. It is time to say “yes” to Europe, time to let go, as doting parents whose children have reached maturity, must let go. Indeed, let us accelerate the day of Europe’s reclaiming its full independence, by setting a date certain for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops. In 1961, General Eisenhower urged Mr. Kennedy to withdraw them all then; forty years later,it is time to follow Ike’s advice. As we look eastward, we see a Russia smaller than she was under Peter the Great. In an eyelash, she lost a world empire, a European empire, an internal empire. Stalin’s USSR is now fifteen nations. The collapse of Bolshevism was of extraordinary benefit to mankind, and we risk the fruits of that victory by treating Russia as a defeated nation to be ignored or taken advantage of. We should inform Moscow that NATO’s red line will move no further east, that we are bringing home all U.S. forces from Europe, that while American oil companies may cut deals in the Caucasus, the United States has no vital interest there, and no intention of creating any new anti-Russian alliance in her back yard. Instead of expanding military alliances to corral and contain Russia, why have we not insisted that our European allies expand the European Union to include Russia? Let us bring Russia in, rather than drive her out. As for Chechnya, it is an ugly brutal war, but the Russians are fighting inside their own territory. Americans, whose beloved Mr. Lincoln unleashed General Sherman to deal with his rebellious provinces, can surely understand the horrors of civil wars, even as we rightly deplore them. But no matter our differences with Russia, we must repair the relationship. None is more crucial. We could make no greater blunder than to cast aside the fruits of our Cold War victory by driving an embittered Russia into the arms of Beijing. But that is exactly what our Beltway elites seem to be doing. But just as we respect the legitimate aspirations of Europe for an equal place in the sun, and Russia’s right not to have NATO squat on its doorstep, Europe and Russia must respect our inherent right to defend ourselves against the ballistic missiles of rogue states. As for our policy of “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq, it is sterile and unsustainable. Like the British, we are one day going home, and we ought not to be devising schemes to extend our stay. Unlike Beijing and Hanoi, Baghdad and Teheran never killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in war. But if we can engage China and North Vietnam, and even North Korea, why can we not at least talk to Iran and Iraq? Have we not suffered enough terrorist atrocities—from the massacre of our Marines, to Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar—to awaken our elites to the reality that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic act of violence on U.S. soil to finally awaken our gamesmen to the costs of global hegemony? As for China, the most peaceful and powerful weapon America had to effect change in its policies is our control of our $8 trillion market. From its sales to us, China earns a trade surplus of over a billion dollars every week. But by bringing China into the WTO, the President threw away our trump card and turned his trade portfolio over to global bureaucrats. The next president must get it back. The China portfolio belongs in the Oval Office, and we need a return to linkage. Specifically, we should tell Beijing: If you wish free access to our 270 million consumers, you must stop harassing Christians, menacing Taiwan, targeting our country, and you must begin giving our exports the same tariff treatment we give yours. We do not want a hot war or a Cold War with China. Nor do we wish to contain China. She is already contained by suspicious neighbors, north, south, east and west. But a China that threatens America’s friends and tramples on American values cannot expect to be treated as any kind of partner. Friends, America today faces a choice of destinies: Are we to be a republic or an empire? Will we be the peacemaker of the world, or its policeman, who goes about night-sticking the trouble-makers of the world, until we, too, find ourselves in a bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transient moment of American preeminence to encourage and assist other countries to stand on their own feet and begin to provide for their own defense. A century ago, a great populist leader begged America not to forego her best traditions and annex the Philippines, an imperial act that would draw America into three Asian wars. We did not heed his advice; let us heed it now: “The fruits of imperialism, be they bitter or sweet,” declared Bryan, “must be left to the subjects of monarchy. This is one tree of which citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice of God, which bids us eat.”