“The early months of 2009 may well be the most precarious period in recent American history,” write Richard Armitage and Michele Flournoy in today’s Washington Post. They note that transitions from one president to the next take at least six months but that the world won’t wait for the 44th president to establish his administration.
Armitage and Flournoy are correct. Adversaries — and even friends — are bound to test the United States at the end of this year and the first part of the next one. In the institutional disarray that inevitably occurs as some officials depart and others arrive, it is virtually certain that a leader outside our borders will see an opening and try to score an advantage. The Chinese, for example, routinely do something in the first days of an administration to gauge its future course, and Iran’s Ahmadinejad, a troublemaker in the best of circumstances, is surely making plans for the interregnum at this moment. Kim Jong Il, from all we can see in the six-party disarmament negotiations, has been thinking about this transition for at least the last half year.
So we are on the edge of a turbulent moment in history. What can we do? As an initial matter, Armitage and Flournoy propose an ambitious and expedited process for putting appointees into place. For our part, we can make sure that both major candidates talk about foreign policy during the general campaign. And then there’s the most important factor, The Decider-in-Chief. This morning, the Washington Post reports that President Bush has been trying to shape his legacy by using historical analogies. Yet his best vindication will be success, specifically starting policies that will lead to success in a McCain or Obama administration. If President Bush wants to escape the tag of “worst president ever” — which many have already assigned to him — then he better establish the framework that creates a stronger international system.
Apart from the war in Iraq, his preferred approach has been to enlist Russia and China to solve the problems of the world. The general theory is that no one can stand up to the combined weight of the three most powerful nations today. Yes, that is true as a theoretical matter. The problem, however, is that American engagement of these two giants has persuaded their leaders to act more assertively than cooperatively. As a result, Moscow and Beijing have frustrated Washington’s initiatives at almost every turn.
President Bush has doggedly continued his approach — his remedy for the failure of engagement in the past is even more engagement in the future — and as he has pursued failed policies problems have gotten worse. North Korea, for example, is now a recognized nuclear power, Iran is about to become one, our democratic allies feel abandoned, and abhorrent regimes continue to mock us. The authoritarian states are banding together around Russia and China, and the leader of the West enables all of them by adopting policies that make Moscow and Beijing even stronger. Naturally, other nations see Russian and Chinese success and now question the value of free markets and representative governance. If Iraq should destroy itself in an explosion of sectarian violence, the result will not be nearly as injurious to the world as what will happen if we continue to empower Moscow and Beijing.
President Bush does not have enough time to tame the Russians and the Chinese. Yet he can begin to alter course and at least establish an approach that will shape the policies of his successor. Late, as they say, is better than never.
