home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
031990
/
03191012.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
95 lines
<text id=90TT0675>
<title>
Mar. 19, 1990: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Mar. 19, 1990 The Right To Die
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 18
THE POLITICAL INTEREST
The Vision Is in the Details
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> Statecraft is a modulator's art. "Sometimes you move
publicly, sometimes privately. Sometimes quietly, sometimes at
the top of your voice. And sometimes an active policy is best
advanced by doing nothing until the right time--or never."
</p>
<p> Since James Baker said that on a Texas turkey shoot shortly
before he became Secretary of State, the Bush Administration's
conduct of foreign policy has been scathingly criticized. The
common complaint, thrown out again last week by House majority
leader Richard Gephardt, portrays George Bush as a visionless
bystander in a changing world. It is a cheap critique that
misses the point. As American primacy recedes, the trick is to
maximize U.S. leverage by crafting creative techniques for
disparate situations.
</p>
<p> By this measure, Bush's foreign policy has got it right
almost every time, the notable exception being China. The
President's "don't gloat" response to communism's demise has
exactly satisfied Mikhail Gorbachev's needs--which at this
time are also America's. So, too, the Administration's Middle
East policy has been adroit. A combination of private pressure
and thinly veiled public threats has pushed Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir so far into a corner that even he may
finally have no alternative but to give peace a chance.
</p>
<p> The Administration's German policy is the most nuanced of
all. The Bush-Baker approach was reflected in their refusal to
bash Helmut Kohl publicly for failing to declare the
German-Polish border inviolate. As other Western leaders held
press conferences to vent their spleen on the border issue,
Washington urged privately that Kohl's coalition partners bear
the burden of turning the Chancellor around, a result
accomplished last week.
</p>
<p> Bush and Baker have never worried that a resurgent Germany
might actually demand the lands lost to Poland after World War
II. What does concern them is Kohl's survival. Their
calculation is simple: Germany's continued economic, political
and military integration into a unified Europe is essential for
world peace. They fear that Kohl's opponents, the Social
Democrats, might succumb to neutralism, with unforeseeable
consequences as Germany flexes its considerable economic muscle
in the coming effort to rebuild Eastern Europe.
</p>
<p> Admittedly, the payback is yet to come; Kohl's chauvinistic
propensity to go it alone has continued unabated. But by
publicly ignoring the Chancellor's diplomatic free-lancing,
Bush and Baker hope for greater influence down the road.
Throwing America's weight around, they reason, could only make
the transition to a Europe inevitably dominated by a united
Germany even more difficult to manage. In another time, a
similar posture was called appeasement. So far, at least, the
Bush-Baker policy can be viewed as smart politics, as another
effort--to borrow Baker's words--toward trying to get
allies and opponents "to operate on America's terms, so that
you can then do whatever you determine it is in your interests
to do." Given the U.S.'s diminishing economic position relative
to Japan and Germany, "on America's terms" may be too lofty an
ambition. But it is always wise to pursue a smooth working
relationship with your bankers.
</p>
<p> How would Bush be maneuvering if he didn't have the cushion
of an approval rating hovering around 80%? If the economy were
on the skids and his popularity at 40%, would he revert to the
tough-guy rhetoric that characterized his presidential
campaign? Would he have resisted reading the riot act to Kohl?
Would he risk alienating America's powerful Jewish lobby by
playing hardball with Shamir? No doubt Bush will have tough
moments somewhere along the line--and then we will have an
answer.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>