Yesterday, I blogged about Hillary Clinton’s speech on the U.S. National Security Strategy at Brookings. Since then, a good few pundits have popped up to knock the NSS, taking issue with its emphasis on international cooperation. Here’s Les Gelb:
As for Mr. Obama’s strategic desire to build cooperation with nations around the world and get international institutions effectively on Washington’s side, forget about it—at least in any short or medium term. Most nations don’t do a damn thing and aren’t prepared to sacrifice a penny to what they see as “an American cause.” No amount of American niceness and understanding will change that.
And here’s the rather more measured Will Inboden:
Much of the document is devoted to heralding worthy things like “engagement,” “cooperation,” and “partnerships.” These are all essential methods of foreign policy, of course, but they are more means rather than ends in themselves.
Since hearing Clinton speak, I’ve had the chance to talk to a number of serious U.S. foreign policy types – a lot of them committed fans of the UN and other multilateral, cooperative outfits. But it’s fair to say that most of them at least shared Inboden’s qualms – and more than one agreed with Gelb. The general view seems to be “international engagement’s great, but what are your intended outcomes?” Another frequent question is “OK, if we try cooperation, when will we know that it’s working?”
What if cooperation turned out to be working on an issue like Iran, well, today? Look at this story about the growing tensions between Moscow and Tehran:
In one of the worst rows between the two countries in decades, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday admonished the Kremlin for bowing to what he said was U.S. pressure to agree to sanctions. Ahmadinejad bluntly warned President Dmitry Medvedev to be more cautious or risk being seen as an enemy of the Islamic Republic. The Kremlin told the Iranian president to refrain from “political demagoguery.”
When asked by a reporter about Ahmadinejad’s tirade, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he viewed the comments as “emotional.” Underscoring Moscow’s growing impatience with Iran, Lavrov said that Russian leaders had tried repeatedly to resolve the dispute but that Tehran had failed to respond properly.
“To our great regret, during years — not just months — Iran’s response to these efforts has been unsatisfactory, mildly speaking,” Lavrov said at a briefing in Moscow.
There may be posturing here (of course there is, Ahmadinejad’s involved). But it does look as if the U.S. strategy of working closely with Russia on Iran is having some impact. As American diplomacy improves, Iran’s gets creaky. Does that guarantee our security? No. Does it suggest that U.S. advocacy of international cooperation might alter other powers’ strategic calculations? Yes. Perhaps we’ve all been too busy asking if international cooperation works in theory to spot that it’s working in practice.
