Another thing Bush got right
By Philip Zelikow Building on what I said earlier about Bush administration successes, here is one more: The administration reinforced an emerging view that, in an era dominated by transnational concerns, the content and values of domestic governance in other states necessarily were core concerns for international politics. This vital stream in global political thinking ...
By Philip Zelikow
By Philip Zelikow
Building on what I said earlier about Bush administration successes, here is one more:
The administration reinforced an emerging view that, in an era dominated by transnational concerns, the content and values of domestic governance in other states necessarily were core concerns for international politics. This vital stream in global political thinking had several tributaries.
Again, the shock of 9/11 played a role: the assault of Islamist extremists prompted a strong and appropriate assertion of countervailing ideas. In his best formulation of this reaction (and one of the earliest), Bush eloquently detailed the "nonnegotiable demands of human dignity" — a speech, by the way, which did not list "democracy" as one of the minimum elements. Bush’s later addresses would not be so restrained.
At the same time, in arguing that large increases in assistance were needed for the world’s poor, American leaders also argued that humanitarian aid could not work, and might even be counterproductive, unless it was linked to better governance in recipient states. Washington succeeded on both fronts. The U.S. doubled its overseas development assistance; the governance argument is now widely accepted.
The U.S. and European approach in WTO negotiations around the world (especially the Chinese case), the European strategy in EU accession talks, and the U.S. approach in a fresh network of bilateral trade treaties prepared in Bush’s first term: These all codified more links between the character of domestic policies and more active participation in the international community. These trends have reformulated, in a more palatable and durable form, the kinds of reform/conditionality arguments that the United States, the IMF, and the World Bank were making during the 1980s and 1990s.
And there is a fundamental overlap of domestic and international policies in the mix of energy, environment, and public health issues that are moving to the front of the international agenda in the first decade of the 21st century.
Philip Zelikow holds professorships in history and governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. He also worked on international policy as a U.S. government official in five administrations.
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
