Foreign Policy a la Carte

__"Fragmentation and Hubris" by James Schlesinger, in The National Interest (Fall 1997), 1112 16th St. N.W., Ste. 540, Washington, D.C. 20036.__

For decades, the Soviet threat kept anxious Americans attuned to events abroad. Now that it is gone, contends Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense (1973–75), the public is losing interest in foreign affairs, and domestic special interests, particularly ethnic groups, are gaining "excessive influence over [U.S.] foreign policy."

The Clinton administration’s proclaimed goals of expanding democracy and free enterprise abroad "provide precious little in the way of specific guidance" about the conduct of foreign policy, he says. In the absence of "a hammered-out vision of the national interest," ethnic interests have had a clear field.

"The aggregate list is almost embarrassing," Schlesinger writes. Greek Americans have blocked delivery of helicopters and frigates purchased by Turkey, a critical U.S. ally during the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. Armenian Americans are seeking to keep in force a legal prohibition on nonhumanitarian aid to Azerbaijan, which has been partially occupied by Armenia. Cuban Americans have "wholly dominated" U.S. policy toward Fidel Castro’s Cuba. "It is scarcely possible to overstate the influence of Israel’s supporters on our policies in the Middle East," Schlesinger says. Pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus strongly affected U.S. policy toward Haiti. U.S. interventions in Northern Ireland, made "with an eye on the Irish-American vote," repeatedly roiled U.S. relations with Britain during President Clinton’s first term. The expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) "has been driven by concern over the politics of appealing to voters of East European origin."

Just because a particular domestic group presses for a certain policy does not mean that that policy may not be an appropriate one, Schlesinger acknowledges. NATO expansion, for instance, may be in the national interest. "Yet overall," he maintains, "these domestic pressures tend to damage our international position." (So, he says, does the unrelated American propensity to nag other nations about their behavior.) Increasingly, Schlesinger maintains, U.S. foreign policy is seen abroad as "incoherent and capricious."

Historically, ethnic politics, though a big part of American domestic politics, was not allowed to affect the nation’s foreign policy except "tangentially," Schlesinger says. Today, however, politicians more and more regard foreign policy as the equivalent of another bag of goodies to pass out to ethnic constituencies.

Academe’s current enthusiasm for "multiculturalism" and ethnic identity only makes matters worse, says Schlesinger. "To sustain an effective and reasonably consistent foreign policy requires a national consensus, which in turn depends upon a sense of common purpose. The new intellectual fashions weaken and, in a sense, delegitimize the search for that common purpose." No matter how great its power, Schlesinger warns, a fragmented society cannot function effectively as a world leader.