When most people think about US foreign policy these days, they think first about aspects of the war on terrorism: the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, the troubles of the Middle East, and the terror cells lurking in Southeast Asia, Europe and even the US.
This preoccupation is natural. International terrorism literally hit home on Sept. 11, 2001, and, for understandable reasons, an outraged American public wants those responsible brought to justice -- and a foreign policy that makes sure such events will never happen again.
The war on terrorism will remain the US' No. 1 foreign policy priority for as long as necessary, because terrorism -- potentially linked to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- now represents the greatest threat to American lives. But that does not mean that terrorism is the only issue we care about.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
US president George W. Bush has a vision of a better world, and a strategy for translating that vision into reality. First laid out publicly in September, 2002, in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, that strategy is broad and deep, far-ranging and forward-looking, attuned as much to the opportunities as to the dangers that we and others face.
US strategy is widely accused of being unilateralist by design. It isn't. It is often accused of being imbalanced in favor of military methods. It isn't. It is frequently described as being obsessed with terrorism and hence biased toward preemptive war on a global scale. It most certainly is not.
Above all, the president's strategy is one of partnerships that strongly affirms the vital role of NATO and other US alliances -- including the UN.
Beyond partnership comes principle. The president's strategy is rooted in the promotion of freedom and dignity worldwide.
"America must stand firmly," the president wrote, "for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property."
We stand by these values now and always. They are the values served by the partnerships that we build and nurture.
Free trade and new US initiatives for economic development also figure prominently in the president's strategy, as does playing a role in helping to solve regional conflicts such as that between Israelis and Palestinians.
Another priority is developing cooperative relations among the world's major powers. It is here that the key to a successful conclusion to the war against terrorism lies.
We do not see the war against terrorism and the nurturing of constructive relationships among the major powers as mutually exclusive tasks. We conduct the war on terrorism with an eye toward major-power cooperation, and we seek enhanced major-power cooperation with an eye toward success in the war on terrorism. The logic of this dual approach rests on the fact that terrorism threatens the world order itself -- and thus creates a common interest among all nations that value peace, prosperity and the rule of law.
As Bush has written, "Today, the world's great powers find ourselves on the same side." This development is not just good news; it is revolutionary news. For too many years -- too many centuries -- the imperial habits of countries squandered untold resources and talent by jousting for land, glory and gold. The futility of such habits has become evident in the 21st century. The possession of vast territory, raw physical resources and brute power guarantees neither prosperity nor peace. Investment in human capital, social trust, trade and cooperation within and among nations does.
The sources of national strength and security for one nation thus need no longer threaten the security of others. An insight of the American founders -- that politics need not always be a zero-sum competition -- has at last been adopted by enough people worldwide to promise a qualitative difference in the character of international relations. If, instead of wasting lives and treasure by opposing each other as in the past, today's major countries pull in the same direction to solve problems common to all, we will begin to redeem history from much human folly.
We must not take the present peace among the world's nations for granted, for differing interests may still lead nations to clash. We have to work at it with patience, mindful that major war has broken out in the past despite a widespread conviction that it simply could not happen again.
Of course, we want to promote human dignity and democracy in the world, to help people raise themselves from poverty and to transform the inadequate system of global public health. We are pursuing these goals right now. But only if the deep peace of our era can be "preserved, defended and expanded" -- to use the president's words -- can we pursue these goals for as long as it will take to achieve them.
And make no mistake, these are the central goals of US policy in the 21st century. We fight terrorism because we must, but we seek a better world because we can -- because it is our desire, and our destiny, to do so. This is why we commit ourselves to democracy, development, global public health and human rights, as well as to the prerequisite of a solid structure for global peace. These are not high-sounding decorations for our interests. They are our interests, the purposes our power serves.
Because this is so, the US' reputation for honesty and compassion will endure. Today, US motives are impugned in some lands. But as we preserve, defend and expand the peace that free peoples won in the 20th century, we will see the US vindicated in the eyes of the world in the 21st.
It would be churlish to claim that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been error-free from the start. But we have always pursued the enlightened self-interest of the American people, and in our purposes and our principles there are no mistakes.
Our enlightened self-interest puts us at odds with terrorists, tyrants and others who wish us ill. From them we seek no advice or comity, and to them we will give no quarter. But our enlightened self-interest makes us partners with all those who cherish freedom, human dignity and peace. We know the side on which the human spirit truly abides, and we take encouragement from this as our strategy unfolds. In the end, it is the only encouragement we really need.
Colin L. Powell is the US Secretary of State. This article is drawn from an essay in the forthcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under