WASHINGTON—22 June 2005. The Brookings Institute and the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies (CNAPS) put on a joint discussion this afternoon to discuss broadly the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy. Featuring a panel of five scholars, currently in the middle of 10-month fellowships at CNAPS, representing various government and nongovernmental academic groups from China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, the panel successfully created a forum for this group of experts and leaders to present their Eastern perspectives on the development of foreign policy in the West.
At a time when U.S. foreign policy has been getting deconstructed and accused of having imperialistic intentions for its motives in invading Iraq, it seems contradictory to find a panel of foreign discussants assembled to present their opinions and viewpoints on U.S. policies in an environment where they are encouraged to be critical. Perhaps beyond anything that was discussed in detail during the panel, the openness of the forum and the fact that it was assembled in the first place is a positive indicator that the health of the U.S. democratic system is still functioning.
The moderator of the discussion did well to keep the diverse background of the panelists in mind. His opening question asked, “What do you see as the positive aspects of U.S. foreign policy? And, what aspects do you see as negative?” Each panelist was given a chance to respond to the first question before offering any critical remarks. The panel commended the U.S. on its dedication to the promotion of democracy in the Middle East and for the underlying belief in a people’s capacity to change for the better in accepting democracy, shown by the vigilance of the U.S. in fighting oppositional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Korean Professor of International Relations at the Catholic University of Korea Dr. Park Kun Young complemented the U.S.’s generous response to the tsunami earlier this year. Ms. Shyh-Fang Liu of the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party and a former senior official in the Taiwanese government said that she has long admired the U.S. system for its commitment to bipartisan debate. Hong Kong Polytechnic Economics Professor Dr. Whenhui Zhu enthusiastically agreed with Ms. Fang that the U.S. system does well in its pursuit of checks and balances through bipartisan politicking to maintain flexibility and continuity in its policymaking; however, Dr. Zhu was quick to say that he commends the U.S. on these accomplishments relative to other systems of governance and that while bipartisanship is one of the best indicators of a healthy democracy in the U.S., it is also the source of problematic domestic confusion and that the tendency to export the American conception of civic freedom while natural and empathetic is neither practical or constructive.
Dr. Zhu’s observation opened up a line of critical analysis that each panelist seemed prepared to give an opinion on. Mr. Quan Jing, a career diplomat with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs presently working on analyzing the crisis management issues in the Sino-U.S. relations and the potential for the North Korea situation to create a crisis in the relationship, in agreement with Dr. Zhu’s assessment that the U.S. has inappropriately taken it upon itself to export the institution of democracy to non-democratic governments, specifically Iraq. Mr. Jing stated that he believes that all people are naturally inclined to embrace political freedom as their most basic human right and that democracy is capable of spreading freedom throughout the world. Democracy, however, Mr. Jing continued, is not so much an institution as it is a set of ideals and to be able to function in any society it must be indoctrinated in the confidence of its constituents. Establishing the mandatory self-confidence in the ideals of democracy is a process that—even on the level of individuals—takes many years if not decades, which begets several criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.
First, the unilateralism employed in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 will not stand as an acceptable framework for democracy promotion, Mr. Jing said. The consequence of going ahead with invading Iraq, the professor continued, has been a loss of credibility in the eyes of the international community in terms of the U.S.’s commitment to diplomatic negotiating process. The U.S. must now be committed to staying in Iraq for as long as it takes to foster a self-sustaining democratic environment. Given the fact that democracy cannot be installed overnight, Mr. Jing said, the Bush Administration made a fatal error in not waiting for more comprehensive multilateral support before going into Iraq.
Dr. Park, in agreement with Mr. Jing, posed the question, “If the U.S. was prepared to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam may have had nuclear weapons and because the citizens of Iraq were suffering inhumane conditions, then why has the Bush Administration not taken action in the cases of Pakistan, North Korea and Burma?” Dr. Park continued saying, the U.S. has not seemed prepared to attack these nations for the sake of human rights. A matter of consensus emerged throughout the panelists’ viewpoints that the U.S. created a rift in negotiating procedure and framework by invading Iraq without pursuing further noncombatant negotiations that has now become a roadblock to negotiations with North Korea and the East Asian countries involved in the Six-Party talks. With the North Korea human rights and nuclear arms situation as the subject of the discussion, the moderator opened the forum to field questions from the audience.
Several members of the audience, which constituted a comprehensive representation of Washington’s NGOs, embassies, universities, various U.S. officials, and representatives of Asian political parties and businesses, seemed to have prepared questions for the panelists regarding the Six-Party negotiations over the North Korea issue. The panelists alternated responding to the audiences’ questions addressing various aspects of the negotiations procedures and continuously asserting that there is no chance of negotiating with North Korea successfully without a unification of voices among the parties behind the directives of U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Taniguchi, a highly respected political and economic commentator in Japan, asserted that the U.S. has made such an alignment of voices extremely difficult by its use of unilateralism in Iraq. For this exact reason, Mr. Taniguchi then stated, that negotiations with North Korea have become infinitely more complex as a result of the Iraq invasion, the U.S. cannot excuse unilateral action in any region, at any time, by citing dedication to spreading democracy as an excuse.
Dr. Zhu, becoming the panel’s voice of optimism, followed Mr. Taniguchi’s analyses, adding his view that much of Chinese and other Asian culture’s hesitance to trust the U.S. is derivative of a lack of experience with America and Americans themselves. Dr. Zhu told the audience of his affection for the U.S. and Americans and how he and his family have had warm and constructive experiences here. But, he says, democracy means different things for different people, and it must be accepted on people’s own terms. North Korea, said Dr. Zhu, wants above all else to achieve normalization of regional relations—it is a matter of distrust of Western institutions that continues to prevent this. Mr. Taniguchi added, a ‘saturation point’ has been reached in his home Japan for citizens’ toleration of North Korean human rights violations—the Japanese citizens yearn for liberalization and reform in North Korea.
Mr. Jing, followed Dr. Zhu’s analyses and brought some closure to the afternoon’s event. Stating that the nations of the Western hemisphere are dependent on U.S. for stability economically and in terms of security, while in the East, he continued, U.S. relationships with Japan, China, and especially South Korea, have done more to foster democracy, freedom, and open-trade polices in the region than any other force. What the U.S. now needs, Mr. Jing concluded, is not a completely new foreign policy, but rather one that is better representative of U.S. interests and values on a globally consistent front. In his statement, Mr. Jing imbued the U.S. as a nation of people who embrace democracy in their heart of hearts but are lacking a government who can empower policies that do the same.
