A Democrat vision of US foreign policy 2008

Professor Bruce Jentleson (Duke University) spoke at school last night. He was senior foreign policy advisor in the Clinton/Gore White House (and from the sounds of things remains fairly heavily engaged with Democrat policy). He laid out six dimensions of a rejuvenated US foreign policy post-Bush. I paraphrase heavily, though some of his more snappy phrases are included. Pie in the sky perhaps, but should '08 deliver a Democrat White House some ideas may find their way into policy.

1. US should act as a 'fulcrum, not a foil', of multilateralism. Need to rebuild trust between the UN and US. The United Nations must focus 'less on multilateralism's desirability and more on its doability' - ie: outcomes will increase esteem for its work. US should expand engagement with regional organisations and non-state actors (global governance considerations increasingly important).

2. The US needs a strategic outlook that is inclusive of other major powers not defensive against them. Should increase the stakes of other powers in global peace - this would be a more reliable base than US hegemony alone. Special focus required on relationship with China, Europe, Russia. Good signs with cooperation on Iran and North Korea. Common approach to non-core strategic issues like Darfur required.

3. US should be a security enhancer, not detractor. Increased focus on diplomacy required - 'Diplomacy is not a dirty word' and resort to it is "something real men can do." In disputes, US needs to emphasise 'policy change not regime change.' This worked in the case of Libya where proliferation policy, not political differences, drove effective diplomacy. Force must be used more judiciously. Security priorities should be 1) Terrorism - not monolithic and needs a nuanced response. Impact of terrorism is 'more Shakespeare than statistics' - ie: be realistic about the threat. Current engagement on terrorism one-way - allies such as Egypt, Indonesia may question value of cooperation. 2) Arab-Israeli dispute - Bush White House the first in four decades not to prioritise resolution of the conflict. 3) Iran - need a broad approach to the Iran-US relationship and recognition that it is a regional power. Must give sanctions time to work (see Jentleson's recent paper on Iran here). 4) Darfur - genocide unacceptable (Bush policy on Darfur not bad).

4. Development efforts should prioritise 'human security' beyond simply 'democracy promotion'. No democracy can be stable unless it delivers development dividends. 'Good governance' would be a better focus that 'democracy'. Need to build structures that recognise countries' different stages of economic and political development. Fukuyama was wrong when he suggested political/economic evolution would end with liberal market democracy. Poverty and inequality were missing dimensions of his analysis - and are key drivers of current global dissonance.

5. US should be a leader on global environment issues, not a laggard. US public debate is well behind that of Europe/UK. With leadership, US science could deploy its significant capabilities. Technology is an important part of the solution.

6. Must renew the domestic foundations of US foreign policy. Need to have house in order to act as a example to the world of how countries should be run. Katrina reflected badly on US priorities. Domestic debate needs to be freed up. 'Dissent is not disloyalty.'

He would not be drawn on which presidential candidate had enlisted his services (he advised the Kerry-Edwards campaign in '04), but suggested that candidates need to focus on ideas - what they would DO if elected as opposed to what they oppose. Further, '08 would be about US job security as much as it would be about Iraq.