The Godfather Foreign Policy

[Guest Aloysius]

An interesting explanation of contemporary US foreign policy:

 

 

You can check out the rest of the conversation here.

 

[calfoxwc]

Maybe we should have a thread of Al's meaningless videos

 

that I don't even care to watch.

 

I can only guess that Al is equating Obama with Obama's mafia.

 

Well, he SAID "Godfather".

[Guest mz.]

You tell him, cal!

[Westside Steve]

I usually enjoy these bits.

 

 

Not sure which politcal faction I'd cast as Michael.

 

WSS

[osusev]

interesting attempt at widening the possible target audience for this book. I think the market for this book stays the same because foreign policy is not something (IMHO) the general public cares about unless (9-11) it knocks on their door.

 

Its a gimmicky parable attempt for increased sales, interesting I would like to see the demographics of the actual buyers of this book versus prior books.

[Guest Aloysius]

I usually enjoy these bits.

 

 

Not sure which politcal faction I'd cast as Michael.

 

WSS

I'm glad you enjoy them.

 

It's Hulsman's contention that foreign policy realists best fit the Michael character.

 

People use the word 'realism' in a bunch of different ways. But at its core, foreign policy realism isn't necessarily a coherent ideology but a way of talking about foreign policy: focusing on power relations between different state actors working to advances their own interests. As such, it focuses less on non-state actors (Al Qaeda, NGO's, etc.) or values ("the clash of civilizations", democracy promotion).

 

Hulsman thinks that the critical issue facing US foreign policy isn't actually terrorism or democracy promotion, but the rise of new powers that challenge US hegemony. Those powers - China, India, Brazil, and possibly a renascent Russia - could end up pursuing their national interests in ways that weaken or actually harm US interests.

 

For that reason, Hulsman proposes focusing on int'l coordination as a way to make sure the US remains "the first among equals". We'd give up part of the game by giving up our unipolar hegemony, as Michael gives up part of the Las Vegas gambling money to the other families, but we'd set up a system in which we'd still have an immense power and, perhaps more importantly, forestall the growth of a rival power that could threaten us militarily.

 

I think that's a smart idea, one that John Ikenberry has been pitching for some time. It's something that Democratic foreign policy hands have advocated, but - as Hulman contends - don't approach with enough of a hard-nosed, realist bent. For instance, he criticizes the US media for praising Obama's European trip when he wasn't able to get any major concessions from Germany and other anti-stimulus European countries. And while he supports Obama's plan to engage Iran diplomatically, he thinks that Obama should use it as a lever to push the Europeans towards tougher action if/when Iran doesn't actually play ball.

 

It's a foreign policy approach that I'm very sympathetic towards, even if I've got a little bit of soft spot for democracy and human rights promotion.