US Foreign Policy and the NeoCon Platform

Russia's President, Dmitry Medvedev, once again stunned Western nations with the announcement that Russia now recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent regions. This news is unnerving for a myriad of reasons; the most obvious being that the rules of international law are being destroyed in part because a country has shown it can invade a sovereign nation without consequence. It is also equally obvious and equally unnerving that a country (a G-8 member, no less) can recognize regions within a different nation's borders as independent. However, a more nuanced reason this is unnerving is the bigger picture this paints in regards to a Second Cold War and the U.S.'s current approach to addressing it. Along this theme, the BBC had a fascinating interview with Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili. (Watch the interview.) As Saakashvili adroitly points out, this is much bigger than a regional issue. This is a nation [Russia] unilaterally trying to redraw the European map. These actions are nothing short of the first deliberate steps towards a new Cold War of ideals. Thus, if the U.S. is, in fact, entering (or already has entered) a Second Cold War, then analyzing the U.S.'s foreign policy platform is as important now as it has been since the end of the original Cold War. For the duration of the Bush Administration, the United States has adhered to a NeoCon-based foreign policy. For years a debate had raged in Washington over the academic validity of a NeoCon strategy to world issues. It is well documented that Cheney and Wolfowitz, among others, believed that intervention would lead to a domino effect of democracy. (For the full-blown edict on this concept, read The Project for the New American Century treatise entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.) Even though the debate over the NeoCon movement faded in public circles after the failed efforts in Iraq, it has not in the White House. The Bush Administration continues to speak in NeoCon tones, and still pushes these concepts as the best strategy. A pillar to the NeoCon belief is that once a country has become a part of the capitalistic society, it has too much at stake to risk alienation by other trading partners by using military force or aggression. Essentially, it is the belief that greed triumphs all. However, we are witnessing the double-edged sword of greed; i.e., capitalism. While the promise of wealth through capitalism can push communistic nations into ruins like we saw at the end of the U.S.S.R.; it is being exhibited that greed doesn't necessarily beat out nationalism. This is a major flaw in the NeoCon beliefs. Russia is proving, quite effectively, that a Neo-Communistic state can embrace greed while still maintaining an over-riding sense of nationalism and power. If this is true, then in one brief summer, Russia has ended the debate on the power of capitalism as a chief weapon in a NeoCon strategy. While the idea of spreading democracy is admirable and the belief in capitalism must remain a key element to all U.S. foreign policies, it is time to charter a new course for U.S. international efforts. While Geopolitical Thoughts is not calling for a return to Detente, the methods to support the NeoCon ideals have shown to be imprudent. As we embark upon a new U.S. presidency, it is vital to consider a new course in foreign policy as our foes no longer appear to be not only developing-nations of moderate size in the Middle East and SE Asia; but also, massively-populated, wealthy nations. Therefore, the next U.S. president must embrace a long-term foreign policy that addresses immediate and larger threats such as Neo-Communist Russia, as well as possible future threats such as Neo-Communist China. It is Geopolitical Thoughts belief that the U.S., heretofore, has not adequately appreciated the long-term implications of the Russian actions. Once hailed a new breed of Former-Soviet-Union leaders, Mikhail Saakashvili has been a trusted champion for U.S. interests in the region. However, political wonks in Georgia say that Saakashvili has played his cards poorly, and is now in serious jeopardy of losing power. (To listen to the BBC interview, President Saakashvili's words had a tone of resignation.) If the failed invasion of Iraq wasn't enough to shift the U.S. foreign policy away from a NeoCon platform, losing such an advocate as Saakashvili better. If not, the U.S. actions, or lack thereof, are putting the U.S. further into a position of strategic weakness for years to come.