While the Geek isn't quite old enough to remember the news reports of the hosannas ringing all over Europe when Woodrow Wilson made his triumphal tour prior to the Versailles Peace Conference, he can remember the outpourings which greeted JFK and reached a decibel peak with the Ich bin ein Berliner speech. Journalists reported all the noise and celebration surrounding both Wilson and JFK.
But, only historians, masters of the dry dust of the morning after, take note of what happened afterwards. When one considers the disdain with which Americans treat the small whining voice of history, it is not surprising that the thrill of the victorious moment will be noted while the agony of any succeeding defeat will be ignored.
The lesson of the Wilson and Kennedy visits was simple. The fun of the party must not be recalled at the expense of remembering the vomiting and hangover which came afterwards.
None of this is intended to undercut the validity of President Obama's public diplomacy. It is what he is best at as last year's campaign demonstrated. He can work a crowd rhetorically with an uncanny skill. The halo effect may extend past the moment and the personality to include new American foreign policy initiatives.
It is the policy which matters. It is the policy which will bring long term success or failure to the US, not the personality du jour.
To use the negative example currently so beloved of the cheering Europeans ranging from high school students to heads of government, George W. Bush may have been an annoying person but it was US policy developed and implemented on his watch which degraded America's image and influence in Europe and throughout the world. Had George W. not pushed unilaterialism, rejection of Russia as a Great Power and given a thumbs-up to the invasion of Iraq, his personality and personal attributes would not have equalled a gnat's ass in impact on European political leaders or public.
Importantly, it is the policy stance of the Bush administration which forms the context in which Obama is viewed and cheered. If and only if the policies of his administration are seen as beneficial not only to the US but to Europe as well will the cheering continue and the hangover delayed.
Public opinion is notoriously fickle. This truism applies as well to Europe as it does in the US. The views, opinions and actions of political leaders are no more stable and long lasting.
Nicholas Sarkozy might have emoted and effused over Obama as the greatest thing since the invention of the croissant yesterday, but if the Obama administration policies fail to meet the what's-in-it-for-us test, the French and their president may see Obama as vinegar laced wine in a couple of months. Medvedev may hail the American president as his "new comrade" now, but that is subject to change without notice if the Kremlin decides its latest charm offensive has not paid off sufficiently.
American observers may, as did Politico, applaud Obama for his having delivered a message of "tough love" at the Strasbourg "Town Meeting." Yes, the Geek agrees, it was refreshing to hear an American president call upon the Europeans to end their "casual" and endemic anti American words and actions. To remember that al-Qaeda was not a threat to the US alone. To bear in mind that the US public, regardless of the arrogance and indifference to European sensibilities of the previous administration, was not anti-European.
These remarks were public diplomacy at its best. Not simply mouthing an apology for past "bad" American behavior. No. Doing that to be sure, but also letting the folks of Europe and the world know that we were not alone on the sinners' bench.
Leaving aside the financial matters which constituted the critical, necessary core of the G-20 meeting as the Geek is not qualified to offer more than the opinion of ignorance, at least one very substantial matter of policy emerged from London. It came in the context of the bilateral discussions between Obama and Medvedev.
While acknowledging that the Russians have a long tradition of launching peace-and-charm offensives in the midst of saber-clanking and more-or-less shrill outpourings of It's-All-The-American-Capitalist-Camp's-Fault, the hints of a new round of nuclear weapons reduction talks may prove to be a genuine basis for a real policy shift. Even the consideration of a new round of talks on the subject represents a welcome break from the policy of the neocon ninny laden Bush II administration.
But, the shift has to go far beyond that of the merely comparative.
The Geek has been a supporter of the Finite Deterrent school of nuclear doctrine for over forty years. (OMG! Forty years! Where has time and youth gone?) The US and Russia would have more than sufficient capacity to inflict unsurvivable damage on each other with as few as five hundred high kiloton to low megaton yield warheads (or in the old and delightful Soviet terminology, "nuclear charges.") Similarly either would have the capacity to effectively green glass any third party who was so bold as to initiate a nuclear attack. That includes the Peoples Republic of China (pace Mao.)
A reduction in current stockpiles to no more than 1,500 nuclear charges would be an excellent and long overdue course of action. Given the improvements in delivery technology as well as terminal guidance, the survivability of retaliatory force sufficient to assure the effective counter-value targeting of a second strike is now highly probable. Thus, mutually assured destruction (MAD) which has served us well for a half-century would be unimpaired.
Nuclear weapons systems including delivery vehicles are very, very expensive. The stockpiles of both the US and Russia are aging and in need of upgrading in numerous ways. This upgrading as indicated by the American Reliable Warhead Program are hugely capital intensive.
By reducing the current suite of nuclear systems, both countries could afford (literally) the necessary upgrading. Each would also have the wherewithal to engage in critical programs of nuclear materials control and denaturing.
By reducing stockpiles to an effective level, both countries would also gain a measure of moral authority in the common effort to inhibit proliferation and to take (perhaps joint) action against unseemly proliferaters such as North Korea and Iran. A reduction would also have some real potential to defuse the annoyingly accurate argument presented by a number of second and third tier countries that the Original Nuclear Club uses the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) as a means of securing a monopoly on the instruments of mass murder.
If the hints have any substance, the grunts of the diplomatic and defense communities in both Moscow and Washington will get to work shortly. They will work without cheers. Without screaming kids hoping to get a look, get a listen. Without the media panting after them.
Theirs is the substance which works behind the show of summits, of international gatherings, of public diplomacy. Only time will show if there is substance behind the spectacle.
If a year or so down the line, Medvedev and Obama meet, greet and sign a treaty reducing nuclear charges on each side to a number approaching that of a finite deterrent, there will be ample time and reason to applaud. To cheer. For, when--and if--that were to occur, there will have been at least one genuine, positive outcome from the Big Traveling Show in Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment