IF THERE is one defining aspect of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy, it is tough talk. If there is a second, it is moral clarity. In the past year, these twin pillars of conservatism have led Bush to take bold, uncompromising stands on conflicts worldwide, most recently in North Korea and Iraq. But as the administration has lately realized, a macho foreign policy has its limits.
When Bush took office in 2001, he promised a hard-line approach to North Korea. Deriding the Clinton administration's policy of engagement, Bush halted negotiations with the Stalinist state and made clear that he would not submit to nuclear blackmail as his predecessor had. He named North Korea to the axis of evil and publicly proclaimed his loathing of the country's leader, Kim Jong Il. When the North announced last year that it would restart its nuclear weapons program, the administration refused to offer any American concessions until Kim had undertaken a "complete, verifiable and irreversible" dismantling of his nuclear capabilities.
Now, nearly a year into the standoff, America has blinked. After a round of multilateral negotiations with North Korea, the administration suggested last week that an American aid package might be discussed before the North has completely dismantled its nuclear program. As a senior State Department official told reporters on Thursday, "We are willing to discuss a sequence of denuclearization measures with corresponding measures on the part of both sides. It would not be correct to say that they would have to do everything before they would hear anything."
Although the administration insists that its policy is unchanged, such cryptic remarks are a tacit admission that the hard-line approach has failed. Indeed, there was never much chance of success. Thinking war impossible and bribery intolerable, the administration opted to do nothing, in the mistaken belief that verbal condemnation would persuade Kim to cease his weapon building. But by refusing to offer bribes or threaten war, the administration left itself with no effective means of halting North Korea's nuclear program. Eventually, the policy of non-engagement became untenable and the administration wisely (if humiliatingly) switched to the policy of appeasement.
The administration also changed course in Iraq last week, introducing a draft Security Council resolution that would permit greater U.N. involvement in Iraq's rebuilding. As with North Korea, officials claim that there has been no policy change. But the administration's outreach to the United Nations is a significant departure from the defiant unilateralism that marked America's march to war.
In making its case for war, the administration was dismissive of reluctant allies, claiming that American resources were sufficient to conquer and rebuild Iraq. But today, the administration finds itself in possession of a chaotic Iraq whose rebuilding will require more money and manpower than the United States can supply. By admitting the United Nations into the reconstruction process (however reluctantly), the administration has conceded that the United States is unable to bear the full cost of pacifying and rebuilding Iraq.
If there is any lesson to be drawn from the administration's setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, it is that tough talk and moral clarity are not a sound basis for America's foreign policy. Bush approached both conflicts with the belief that the United States could take a principled stand against aggressive dictators and achieve its ends by force of will alone. But when faced with difficult situations in hostile countries, the administration was forced to trade the moral high ground for paths of concession and cooperation.
Such accommodations are often necessary, as even the United States cannot have its way at all times and places. So rather than treat its recent policy reversals as defeats, the administration should take them as occasion to reexamine its uncompromising approach to foreign relations. A foreign policy of hard lines and strong words is attractive in uncertain times, but it bears little resemblance to the reality of international relations.
If Bush is to untangle the web of threats now facing America, he must abandon his moral crusading and pursue realistic solutions to the nation's conflicts. As recent events in Iraq and North Korea have shown, conviction must occasionally yield to convenience if America is to seek its interests in a troubled world.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | 23 hours agoWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
SCHENBERG: Our foreign students and colleagues deserve better
April 18, 2025I pray that we will not persecute now and atone later.
