The 3 D's

Effective foreign policy requires three D's: Diplomacy, Defense, and Development.

I have heard this phrase a couple of times now at the Embassy, and I really like it. It seems to describe a comprehensive approach that is needed in US relations with other countries. It also seems like a helpful rubric to gauge our current engagement in various parts of the world. Here's my report card on four hotspots:

(1) Iraq: Diplomacy (B), Defense (A-), Development (B+) - We should not underestimate the successes we are having in Iraq on all three fronts. Our efforts with other countries in the region have been robust, we are working very hard and very effectively with politicians within the country, and I am hopeful for the transition. Our military has had remarkable success since the surge. And now, our European allies are even helping to pitch in with development work and training of local police forces. It is certainly still a sensitive time, but we are going about things in the right way.

(2) North Korea: Diplomacy (A), Defense (A), Development (NA) - Let's face it: Kim Jong-il is crazy. He is willing to go to extremes just to keep his grip on the country and show any possible dissidents his strength. Through the Bush presidency and into the Obama presidency, I feel the US has handled this situation as best as can be expected. Both administrations have worked with allies throughout the world, we have developed a robust counter to the North Korean threat, and we are continuing the pressure. It is just too bad that Jong-il won't let our development aid reach into the country. Perhaps that would be the decisive third prong to break the deadly impasse.

(3) Iran: Diplomacy (C+), Defense (B-), Development (C) - The current situation is particularly sensitive and we are not operating from a position of strength. The US is still recovering from President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and there remains deep distrust on both sides. Our recent attempts to invite Iranian diplomats to July 4th celebrations has been welcome but a lot more engagement is needed. Our missile defense system in Eastern Europe actually made things worse by alienating a key ally (Russia) of nonproliferation talks in Iran. And efforts to integrate Iran through development aid and assistance half been half-hearted, though that is largely the fault of Iran. A lot remains to be done here.

(4) Russia: Diplomacy (F), Defense (D-), Development (C) - In my mind, our foreign policy towards Russia during the last decade has been a huge failure. On nearly every major international issue since the Kosovo War in 1999, we have been on opposite sides. It did not have to be that way. Failed diplomacy and strong arm tactics in the 1990s disillusioned the fledgling democracy in Russia and they retreated to well-treaded authoritarian responses. The US has only provoked Russia further with its committment to further NATO expansion, placement of missiles and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in our aggressive development support for Georgia. I would argue that we have been comprehensive in applying the three D's in the wrong way vis-a-vis Russia. I am grateful we are looking into a renewed relationship with Russia and particularly hopeful that nuclear arms reductions this fall will be successfull. But even our "reset" button backfired, and the way forward will be difficult. Still, I believe we can and should work to reengage with Russia and craft a revitalized foreign policy in this region of the world.