Unconventional (August 23, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. The obvious story here is the just completed Democratic National Convention. Abroad there are the latest developments or lack of them from both the Middle East and Ukraine. And I want to take a few minutes to discuss my latest article for Foreign Affairs.
Good Vibrations
The Democratic National Convention in Chicago – “Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler; Stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders” in Carl Sandburg’s epic poem – should be labeled a success, both in what it projected and what it avoided. The demonstrations protesting U.S. and Israeli policy in Gaza gained little traction and failed to overshadow what went on inside the convention hall. Mood more than policy dominated, which is undoubtedly smart. Chicago 2024 was not Chicago 1968.
As for what did go on inside the hall, my principal takeaway is that the Democrats have successfully laid claim to being the party of optimism and patriotism. (They would have benefitted, though, from having fewer speakers going on for too long too late into the night.) People were enjoying themselves. Democrats have come a long way from the “Blame America First” party criticized by Jeane Kirkpatrick. Indeed, it is as if they and the Republicans have switched places, with the party of Trump focusing on grievances, on all that they see as wrong and very little on what is right.
Both Obamas rechanneled the then-president’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner remarks from years ago and did their best (which was impressive) to get under Trump’s skin with ridicule. President Biden’s speech was delivered forcefully but was unmemorable. Oprah was sensational, as was Amanda Gorman, the extraordinary poet. Republicans led by Adam Kinzinger who had turned away from Trump were powerful. It was impossible not to like the speeches of second gentleman Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz.
The most important words spoken this week were those of the vice president who would like to be president. It was an effective, disciplined, and well-delivered speech. It was presidential. She used it not just to introduce herself and her philosophy but to define her opponent and the threat he poses to this country’s democracy and national security. She reinforced the message that today’s Democrats believe in individual and collective opportunity. What I call the tenth obligation of all citizens, placing country before party or person, was a recurring theme throughout. The message was not lost on anyone.
The bottom line is that the convention did no harm and appeared to have done some good in energizing Democrats and motivating them to get involved on behalf of their ticket…and in persuading a few Republicans and Independents to open themselves up to the possibility of voting for someone other than Trump. Indeed, I am beginning to think there may well be a secret anti-Trump vote that isn’t showing up in the polls but that may surface on November 5.
The Two Conflicts
There is not all that much to discuss coming out of the Middle East and Ukraine. The United States continues to raise expectations for a ceasefire in Gaza that neither Israel nor Hamas seem to want. The war will likely go on (albeit at a lower level of intensity) for months or even years. No plan for governing Gaza or building an alternative to Hamas is evident.
Meanwhile, Iran seems to have decided to hold off retaliating for the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. But holding off is just that, a delay, and I expect the day will come when revenge (cold as it may well be) will be served up. Still uncertain is how far Iran plans to proceed with its nuclear weapons program and what Israel and the United States are prepared to do about it. Meanwhile, what is heating up is violence between Israel and Hezbollah in the north and between settlers (and on occasion the IDF) and Palestinians in the West Bank.
As for Ukraine, the incursion into Kursk has gone well, which continues to raise the question as to what comes of it. Ukraine’s success will provide a much-needed boost to morale and could force Russia to divert additional troops from eastern Ukraine, where it continues to slowly gain ground. At the same time, it is unlikely to be a turning point in the war. As I suggested last week, it is possible all this sets the stage for diplomacy involving prisoner and land swaps.
Friends
I wrote an article for the just-released September/October issue of Foreign Affairs about the problem of dealing with friends and allies. What led to the piece was U.S. difficulties in getting on the same page as two close partners, Israel and Ukraine. The more I looked into the phenomenon, the more I was struck by how little systematic thinking there has been about the recurring problem of dealing with friends and allies when we find that our interests and policies diverge. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is much more literature on how to contend with adversaries. This article, one that I hope gets used in schools where foreign policy is taught and studied and in government where it is practiced, is the result.
I went back and looked at dozens of experiences this country has had over the past seventy-five years, from World War II and the Cold War until recently. It turns out that disagreement with friends and allies is a recurring phenomenon, and that when it happens, U.S. responses to disagreements fall into six baskets.
The most common approach to disagreement is persuasion, to convince the friend or ally to act differently. The problem is that friends often reject U.S. counsel even when they would be well advised to take it.
A second tack involves incentives, to induce changes of the sort sought. Incentives, though, are not always available or, when they are, turn out to be insufficient. Sanctions can also be introduced to bring about desired changes, although with vinegar rather than honey. This third approach can also turn out to be problematic as sanctions can become counterproductive as there are normally reasons to stay close to a friend or ally even when we disagree on some aspect of the relationship.
A fourth tactic is to simply look the other way. It is an approach successive U.S. presidents employed with Israel when it came to its nuclear weapons program. This may well have been wise. Not at all wise, however, has been the tendency to look the other way at Israeli settlement activity, which has alienated Palestinians and reduced what prospects there are for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A fifth approach is the most drastic, seeking a change in the leadership of the friend. Regime change, though, is often impossible to bring about. In one case where it proved possible (when Washington supported the ouster of the leader of South Vietnam in the early 1960s) it brought about a change in personnel more than policy and more closely associated the United States with that failing policy. It is an approach that should be eschewed.
A sixth option is for the United States to act independently, openly criticizing its friends’ policies if it considers them unwise and advancing or even implementing alternative policies of its own. It has the advantage of transferring the initiative to the United States rather than leaving it with the friend or ally. As you can sense, all things being equal this is my preferred approach.
I hasten to add that independent action is no panacea, since it doesn’t stop the offending behavior on the part of the friend. And it can go too far, as I argue it did in Afghanistan, when the Trump and Biden administrations undermined their partner. But independent action does allow the United States to shield itself from and more importantly offset some of the adverse consequences of what the friend is doing. It also helps preserve the relationship while reminding the friend that the United States has options of its own. That, after all, should be the thrust of any U.S. strategy toward an ally with which it disagrees: to pursue its interests without doing irreparable damage to a valued relationship. I suggest how to do just this when it comes to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. The article is long, but I do hope you will take the time to read it.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Article
The Trouble With Allies (Foreign Affairs)