The difference in worldview
My pre-Super Tuesday post. Via TMV, I came across this post examining one of the major differences between Obama and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy; the willingness to talk to the leadership of unfriendly nations without pre-conditions, and what it says about their respective world-views.
The real question that needs to be answered before deciding which one of these strategies is appropriate is straightforward: how much power does the United States have relative to other actors in the international system? I have attempted to address this question before, and the answer is complex but vital. If, as the neoconservative worldview would have it, the United States posesses an enduring, historically unprecedented concentration of power, then the Bush/Clinton strategy makes perfect sense. If the world is truly unipolar, then to be cut off diplomatically and economically from the United States is to be left out in the cold. To be cut off from Washington is functionally the same as being cut off from everywhere else.
If, however, the world is (or is fast becoming) functionally multipolar, the strategy breaks down. In such a situation, while a relationship with Washington may bring many benefits, it is far from essential. There are other power centers to which countries can look for diplomatic, military and economic support. During the Cold War, U.S. leaders understood this reality, and so made a greater effort to woo foreign capitals, always concerned that the Soviets would make a better offer.
Like the author, I can see that the world has moved to the multi-polar model, and it would be nice to see the US run by someone who has a good grasp of that reality.
