& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

American Foreign Policy

Smart power diplomacy

Mohammad Amjad Hossain
I would like to begin by quoting Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Ford Presidency: "No country has influenced internationals as decisively and at the same time as ambivalently as the United States. No society has more firmly insisted on the admissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of other states, or more passionately asserted that its own values were universally applicable". That was precisely the foreign policy trend of the government of the United States. But disastrous foreign policy was presented by President George W. Bush when he invaded Afghanistan in 2001 without presenting evidential proof that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian, who was a guest resident of Afghan government, was responsible for launching attacks on the World TYade Centre in New York and without the authorization of the United Nations.
Similarly, cowardly act of aggression against Iraq in 2003 was another glaring example of disastrous foreign policy. Here also the United States did not receive green signal from the Security Council. Leaving aside Afghanistan, uncared for attacks on Iraq in fact encouraged Iran to spread sphere of influence in the Middle East. In other words, it was a victory for Iran. Bush's doctrine of preemptive attack in fact replaced multilateralism that remained at the heart of Bill Clinton's foreign policy.
The United States has suffered a serious set back in terms of casualties and egregious misuse of American taxpayers' money in Iraq. On top of this a few hundred thousand have lost their lives coupled with two million Iraqis made refugees and another two million displaced in Iraq itself. Any sensible man describes this act of massacre as criminal beyond comprehension. President Bush’s preemptive action against Iraq has divided the Atlantic alliance on which the United States relied. Both France and Germany did not buy this doctrine of Bush. Exporting democracy to and establishing peace in the Middle East did not see the light of the day during presidency ofBush. It was a total failure.
Negotiations with North Korea to shut down nuclear facilities there did not produce desired results. The proposal for installation of missile defence shield in Eastern Europe has caused disquiet
relations with the Russian Federation. Unrestricted support to Pakistan's dictatorial regime of General Pervez Musharraf was unwise and counter productive. This relation did not help eliminate extremist elements from Pakistan. Instead, there has been growing influence of Taliban and Al-Queda on northern part of Pakistan along Afghan border.
Against the backdrop of this scenario, Hillary Rodham Clinton received clearance from Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate to become third woman Secretary of State to conduct diplomacy around the world. Foreign policy during the tenure of Condoleezza Rice, the immediate past Secretary of State was disastrous, to say the least. Despite concerns raised by some Republican Senators about her husband's global enterprises Hillary's appearance in the confirmation hearing of the committee speaks of positive thinking to assert Obama's policy in carrying out diplomacy.
While defending her posture in foreign relations, Hillary Clinton took a veiled swipe at Bush administration, saying that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideologues; on facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. This is exactly what John Adams, second president of the United States had stated. John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let evidence guide actions and policies. He said: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion cannot alter
the state of facts and evidences". Hillary assured the committee that she would adopt smart power diplomacy, but option for hrilitary action, if necessary', would the last resort to resolve conflicts.
Foreign policy of the United Stats has been perceived by Europeans and Asians alike as imperial and imperious in tone and style which needs to be changed in the context of 21st century. Chauvinistic behaviour will be counter productive. The first woman secretary of State Madeleine Albright was dispersed in Europe for talks about America. The former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine described America disparagingly as hyper power.
Apart from dark political cloud in Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Middle East. South Asia, another conflict of piracy in the high sea and drug trafficking around the border of the United States have added to the agenda on foreign relations of Obama administration. The responsibility now lies on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has assured Senate foreign relations committee to initiate smart power diplomacy to bring about solution to the conflicts around the world, including Iran which is aspiring to become nuclear power to counteract Israeli nuclear power in the Middle East. Task ahead is enormous, but resource is meager. Hopefully, the Secretary of State would consider avoiding double standard and emotion in formula! -ing foreign policy.
Mohammad Amjad Hossain, a former Bangladesh diplomat, writes from Virginia. USA