Originally published on the CGS blog on August 15, 2007.
If the old adage holds true that every crisis creates an opportunity, the current state of U.S. foreign policy — combined with a robust debate amongst Republican and Democratic candidates for their party’s nomination for President — provides that opportunity. However, none of the candidates for president is comprehensively articulating a vision of globalization suitable for the 21st Century; one that would strengthen and repair the damage done during the Bush years.
A vacuum exists for strong leadership to broadly re-shape the direction of U.S. foreign policy for the 21st Century . What is needed is a visionary leader to fill that vacuum and address the array of global challenges currently facing our nation apart from what to do about the war in Iraq.
The need for change in direction is obvious. The unilateral philosophy championed by the Bush administration over the past six years is clearly flawed and ill-suited to address the significant challenges facing the country and the global community. The United States finds itself viewed as a self-centered nation with a foreign policy that disregards the needs of other nations. This is not a helpful image for a global leader and stands in stark contrast to the image of the U.S. after World War II when it worked to build the U.N. system and strengthen international law.
The challenges that the candidates are avoiding are varied, ranging from big picture to issue specific. Perhaps the single biggest challenge any internationalist candidate needs to tackle is the view in certain quarters that relationships between individuals in the U.S. and people abroad as a zero sum game; i.e. when others win Americans lose and visa versa. By articulating specific examples of an interconnected approach to foreign policy, a visionary leader can show that progressive globalism can lead to win-win situations.
For example, in America’s heartland we see U.S. workers who are concerned that their jobs may be outsourced or filled by migrant workers. They are told that legislation limiting outsourcing or the construction of a wall on the southern border is the solution to their problems. In reality, such approaches do not serve U.S. workers well. Ultimately these jobs will be filled by those working abroad, migrant workers on lower wages or by technological advances in the U.S.; additionally such an approach harms relations with allies both near and far.
A far better approach is for U.S. policy makers to invest significant and sustained resources in innovation and education in America. This will ensure that American workers can fill jobs in new sectors and allow them to remain competitive with foreign workers over the long run. By allowing certain jobs to permanently migrate abroad, including crop production and call centers, economies in the global south will advance to a point where new, U.S. produced technologies will find a viable market. Paying a fair wage to migrant workers in the U.S. leads to remunerations bolstering the migrant’s home countries, something that also creates both good will and a market for U.S. innovation.
This is just one example of a progressive globalism approach that emphasizes win-win scenarios. It also is capable of attracting significant public support in the U.S. and abroad. Similar win-wins exist on a broad range of issues ranging from climate change to fighting poverty and infectious diseases.
Another area in which the current candidates have yet to fully engage is the role of CEOs of multinational corporations. These leaders in business are some of globalization’s biggest proponents and should be natural partners of a new progressive globalism.
One way they can lead this effort is to provide leadership in regards to ending the genocide in Darfur. Many of these CEOs were proponents of the successful push to secure Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and argued that strong ties with China would lead it to embrace a more progressive foreign policy. Unfortunately seven years later, China has stymied concrete action on Darfur, while it is places its oil needs over the lives of Darfurian victims of genocide. Presidential candidates seeking to illustrate what their progressive globalization policy would look like should encourage these CEOs to consider working behind the scenes diplomatically with China. The CEO’s could make it clear that China will gain considerable goodwill in many quarters if it applies pressure to Sudan’s President Bashir to stop the violence. From U.S. consumers of Chinese products to large swaths of the U.S. government itself, the benefits to China’s image would be significant. With the 2008 Olympics taking place in China, the CEOs are well positioned to embrace the concept of progressive globalism and seek to nudge China to help the people of Darfur.
The interconnected nature of the world makes it vital that a candidate for president articulate a new globalization — progressive globalism — that equally emphasizes the cross-cutting nature of challenges such as migration, trade, failing states, terrorism, infectious disease, poverty and specific geopolitical tensions; while also reflecting the need for solutions that recognize this interconnectedness and require the re-energizing of and recommitment to international laws and institutions.
The components of a progressive globalism agenda for the 21st Century need to be articulated by those seeking to illustrate their internationalist viewpoint. We are at a critical juncture of international policy making where a credible alternative to unilateralism and walls must be articulated. Such an alternative must be intellectually honest to ensure that people and governments the world over genuinely feel that they are presented with credible solutions to solve the current state of affairs.
