Stephen Walt’s new book “Taming American Power” could be re-titled “How to Talk to a Neoconservative (If You Must).”
Of course Walt, the Belfer professor of international relations and academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government, would not approve of that title: it’s not his style. “Taming American Power” is certainly far from being a political polemic. But Walt’s dispassionate scholarly approach is exactly what is needed to resoundingly discredit the Bush doctrine.
In “Taming American Power,” Walt shows how the Bush administration’s foreign policy has damaged America’s standing in the world. Walt outlines a prescription for a more “mature” foreign policy. He wants to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis by exerting true pressure on Israel. He proposes pairing the fight against nuclear proliferation abroad with a reduction of American nuclear capabilities. And he rejects the notion that states have the right to wage pre-emptive war. These proposals are not revolutionary. What’s important is that he provides a comprehensive intellectual framework from which these goals emerge. This is not empty rhetoric.
Walt begins with the familiar premises that American power is unrivalled and that America should do everything it can to maintain its primacy. But as well as summarizing the ways different administrations have chosen to use America’s power, Walt charts the ways other countries deal with American primacy. From North Korea’s nuclear “blackmail,” to the 2001 “Friendship Pact” between Russia and China, to the influential Israeli, Indian and Armenian lobbies in Washington, other states have found many ways to undermine or take advantage of America’s immense power.
Walt’s reasons for advocating a more restrained American foreign policy are purely pragmatic. America will be able to maintain its primacy longer if it can convince other states that it wields its power wisely and responsibly. States who feel that American primacy is no threat to them will be less likely to try to challenge American power or cooperate with American opponents.
Central to Walt’s argument is his analysis of anti-American sentiment. Unlike Bush’s declaration that “they hate us because we love freedom,” Walt believes that only a small part of anti-American sentiment is the result of automatic resentment of American values or American political and cultural dominance. Instead, Walt demonstrates, most anti-American sentiment is generated by specific American actions and policies.
Historic precedents, like the United States’ at least partial responsibility for the demise of nine freely elected Latin American governments, give many countries good reason to resent the U.S. Walt considers American hypocrisy to be a source of frustration: while trumpeting the virtues of free trade, for instance, America upholds domestic tariffs and agricultural subsidies that keep third-world farmers from being able to compete effectively in the world market.
At every turn, Walt’s analysis shows how damaging the Bush administration’s foreign policy has been. In Walt’s view, the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations both demonstrated a relatively restrained foreign policy. In contrast, the overly ambitious and unilateral “Bush Doctrine” has alienated allies, sparked new resentments, and created serious concerns about the responsible wielding of American power. These familiar complaints take on new weight in the context of Walt’s larger theoretical framework.
The methodical structure of “Taming American Power” makes it easy to read. Walt’s conscientious scholarship may not be as much fun as the snide commentary of Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, but it will leave the reader with a broad understanding of how international power politics works and concrete examples of which American choices have been effective or ineffective. If you want to win a foreign policy argument with a neoconservative, “Taming American Power” will show you how and you might even learn something in the process.
Read more in Arts
‘Rose’ Reincarnates 1942 Nazi Germany, Leaving Viewers Paralyzed