Category Archives: U.S. Leadership

Advancing American Global Leadership

U.S. Global Leadership
I did not want to write this.  I believe that pretty much everything that can be said about our President’s foreign policy vision has been said.  The people who support Mr. Trump do so with the same vigor as those who disagree strongly.  But a July 13 New York Times op-ed by National Security Advisor LTG. McMaster and Director of the National Economic Council Cohn, entitled “The Trump Vision for America Abroad” convinced me to share my views.
 
LTG. McMaster and Mr. Cohn assert that the President’s early July visit to Poland and the G-20 Summit in Germany strengthened U.S. alliances and that “the American delegation returned from the trip with tremendous optimism about the future and what the United States, our allies and our partners can achieve together.”  I am afraid that, based on a 35-year career in our country’s diplomatic service, I cannot share that optimism.
 
The two senior White House officials argue that the President at every opportunity abroad articulated his vision for securing the American homeland, enhancing American prosperity, and advancing American influence.  He did that, but he did not advance our country’s interest in having our allies and partners join, or better yet follow, our leadership.  Other countries are simply not very interested in reminders of our plans for our own prosperity, our own security, and our singular global influence.  They want to hear our views on joint prosperity, joint security, and joint exercise of positive influence around the world. That is how we actually achieve our goals and articulate our leadership — by not making them sound self-serving. 
 
LTG. McMaster and Mr. Cohn nevertheless believe that the President’s recent visits abroad built coalitions.  In support of that coalition building, during those visits, the President affirmed that his America First vision is based on American values.  I can only hope that he was well intentioned, if incorrect.  American values are generous and big-hearted; inclusive and tolerant; self-assured and compassionate.  America First conveys a much more limited, U.S. centric vision. 
 
I am an immigrant with a deep love of my country.  In my heart America is always first.  I get teary-eyed every time I read Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee’s eulogy of George Washington:  First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen. What a powerful statement of being first as an American leader!  As an American diplomat and Ambassador, I never used America First as a recipe for achieving U.S. foreign policy goals abroad.  That  would have led to failure.  I showed U.S. leadership by example and demonstrated the value to others of joining in our initiatives.  Every country wants to be first when it comes to its national interests.  
 
So, respectfully, Mr. President.  For your recent overseas travel, you deserve credit for your support of the NATO mutual defense commitment and for achieving a ceasefire in Syria.  But you did not strengthen our alliances around the world and you did not demonstrate the resurgence of American leadership to bolster common interests and affirm shared values.  You demonstrated your vision for a chest pounding America.  For the rest of the world that vision is all about us, not about leading in partnership with others.  It is no cause for optimism about the success of American global leadership. 
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under American Values, diplomacy, U.S. Foreign Relations, U.S. Leadership

Electing a President and the True Meaning of America First

american-exceptionalismI am a Zero Generation American. Born abroad, I became a citizen at the age of 14.  For me, America has always been first, both before and after coming to our country.  For a young boy from Austria, America was a magical place, vast and full of people who live great lives and do great things. My mother used to remind me that during her childhood, as the Third Reich was being defeated, Austrians rushed to the western part of the country expected to be occupied by the American forces rather than by Soviet soldiers streaming across the border from the east.

Once a citizen, I became more eloquent but no less emotional in my love for our country.  Ultimately, as an American diplomat for more than three decades and as a U.S. Ambassador, I consistently articulated both abroad and here at home the true meaning of America first.  America is first when it comes to building a nation of strong, successful, self-reliant, and community-minded men and women.  America is first in building strong and lasting alliances and acting at home and abroad in defense of freedom and justice.  And America is first in seizing no-nonsense initiatives to change the world for the better and to push the boundaries of human achievement, no matter the obstacles or the cost. America and Americans are not perfect by any means but we are also first in facing our imperfections and correcting our mistakes.

Despite our historic weariness of foreign entanglements as we have grown to be a superpower, we have found that the world is a better place when we are fully engaged in it – diplomatically, economically, and militarily.  We do great things and we right great wrongs, both at home and abroad — as Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

In our current electoral battle two individuals are competing for our vote in leading this country in a violent, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world.  One candidate defines an America locked in conflict with not just our adversaries but also with our friends, allies, and neighbors.  I am a former U.S. Ambassador to Estonia, a country that fully meets the NATO defense spending guideline of 2% of GDP.  It does serious and lasting damage to our credibility — our global currency as a superpower — when a candidate for our highest public office suggests that the security of an ally, whose soldiers have fought and died alongside our own brave men and women, is not worth defending.  The same candidate also paints America as an apocalyptic cartoon landscape and treats our global challenges as a game, forgetting that the characters in this game are real American men, women and children, not action figures.  Sadly, some of our countrymen and women are allowing themselves to be seduced by the perversely entertaining nature of this deadly serious — anything but — game.

I had the opportunity to get to know the other candidate personally in my role as a professional diplomat.  Hillary Clinton was my boss as Secretary of State.  I did my best to live up to her high expectations and the seriousness of her approach to protecting our country’s interests abroad.  I used to sit across from her in staff meetings at the State Department when she consistently demonstrated that she was the best prepared person in the room.  She gave clear leadership guidance.  She allowed opinions other than her own to be heard and to be considered.  And she demonstrated the temperament, humanity, and class of a true leader. In settings with foreign counterparts she tenaciously represented the interests of our country and used her constructive personal relationships with friends as well as adversaries on our people’s behalf.  She took her job most seriously, always putting America, not herself, first.  As a foreign policy professional, I am with her.

Since I cast my first electoral vote in 1972, I have seen our nation lose a hot war, a President resign from office, and our country landing on the moon and winning the Cold War. We have emerged stronger from these experiences, both good and bad, because of the courage and basic goodness and decency of the American people. This November will be my most important vote so far.  It may well be the most important vote for all of us in our lifetime.  The choice is not simply between two candidates.  It is a choice of how we define America first:  A wounded country that defensively sees itself as weak globally, short-hanged by its allies and trading partners, beset by terrorists, and ready to build a wall around Fortress America?  Or are we a confident nation that has never met a challenge it could not overcome, that stands as a rock of strength for its allies and against its enemies, and as a people who treat each other and the world with decency, respect and humility becoming of Ronald Reagan’s “Shining City Upon a Hill.”

Our choice this fall is not simply “binary,” as some have argued.  It is fundamental.

1 Comment

Filed under American Values, diplomacy, U.S. Foreign Relations, U.S. Leadership

Going Boldly Where We Have Been Before: Reengaging America Effectively in Europe

JFK and Ronald Reagan“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” President John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962

 “I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles.” President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

Two decades apart, two U.S. Presidents, one Democrat and one Republican, affirmed similar American resolve in reaching for the stars. Neither JFK nor Ronald Reagan voiced concern over the views of others when it came to our legitimate ambitions. The thrust of the Apollo program and “Star Wars” was: This is U.S. policy. This is what will happen. As a consequence, we landed first on the Moon and won the Cold War. As a consequence, our words had credibility.

Scroll forward to today and we see much of U.S. transatlantic policy expressed in assertions of the limits of U.S. influence or interest and temporary, reactive engagement. At a time of dramatic challenges to European security and international law by the Kremlin, we puzzle over what Mr. Putin wants and how far he will go, rather than implementing U.S. strategic policy, regardless of what Mr. Putin wants or does.

The time has come to pronounce U.S. policy in and with Europe in JFK and Ronald Reagan terms. Here are some suggestions:

  1. To open a new era of transatlantic prosperity, we will greatly intensify and resource a comprehensive and long-term effort to achieve the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Failure or a partial deal is not an option. We can and will do big things with our European partners.
  2. We will enlarge NATO to all European countries that wish to join and that meet Alliance requirements, starting immediately with those that are ready now. No exceptions; no NATO member vetoes unrelated to a country’s qualifications. No non-NATO vetoes at all.  We will openly encourage our European allies to take a similarly ambitious enlargement approach to new European Union memberships.
  3. We choose to stop U.S. military reductions in Europe and will add a new permanent U.S. presence to the territories of all Alliance member nations unable to meet challenges to their security without our support. It shall be our nation’s policy to provide lethal defense weapons to any non-NATO country in Europe whose democratic ambitions are threatened by outside force and intervention.
  4. We will engage in a comprehensive and intensive effort to pursue the competition for hearts and minds in favor of free societies, open markets, and human rights, reclaiming the public pulpit for democratic values.
  5. We choose to take the fight to all those who threaten the safety and security of our society and that of our friends, together with allies and partners, or alone if we must. In that effort, we will bring the full diplomatic, economic, and military arsenal of the United States to bear, excluding no option available to us.

We do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Europe, U.S. Foreign Relations, U.S. Leadership