home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- WORLD, Page 28AMERICA ABROADInfluencing Moscow's Clones
-
-
- By Strobe Talbott
-
-
- The Bush Administration may be forgiven for reacting slowly
- to the phantasmagoria of 1989. No one saw the collapse of
- communism coming, and no one could be sure that it would
- continue, much less spread. The next stage, however, is more
- predictable: sooner or later what started in the Soviet Union
- will engulf Moscow's clones in the Third World. This time there
- will be no excuse for the U.S. to be caught flat-footed.
-
- Yet the Bush Administration is not even thinking about the
- matter in a serious, coordinated way. Neither the National
- Security Council, which is the President's personal think tank,
- nor the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, which is
- supposed to look over the horizon of foreign policy, is engaged
- in a systematic review of U.S. strategy for dealing with
- Marxist-Leninist regimes outside Europe. Instead, the regional
- experts of the bureaucracy are nibbling away at their own
- pieces of what should be seen, and addressed, as a global
- challenge -- and opportunity.
-
- One way for the U.S. to signal a comprehensive approach
- would be to maintain full-fledged embassies in four far-flung
- corners of the Third World that have long been color-coded red
- on American maps: Afghanistan, Angola, Cuba and Viet Nam. By
- snubbing those governments in various ways, Washington is doing
- more than just underscoring its disapproval of their leaders;
- it is also stubbornly reaffirming the implication that they are
- minions of Moscow.
-
- That bedrock contention of the cold war simply does not
- stand up these days. Insofar as the Kremlin still calls the
- tune, it is sounding retreat. In the past year the U.S.S.R. has
- removed its army from Afghanistan, prevailed on Viet Nam to
- withdraw its troops from Cambodia, and helped begin extricating
- the Cubans from Angola.
-
- Some puppets, having had their strings loosened or even cut,
- can be expected, like Pinocchio, to misbehave as badly as ever.
- Fidel Castro, for example, is almost as much at odds with
- Moscow as he is with Washington. But that is no argument for
- a diplomatic boycott. Quite the contrary. The U.S. would have
- more clout with such miscreants if it dealt with them directly,
- through American ambassadors who could remonstrate with local
- officials and gather intelligence.
-
- In other contexts, conservative American Presidents have
- argued that maintaining diplomatic relations need not
- constitute an endorsement of the powers that be or the
- political system of a country. The Reagan Administration
- justified its intensive diplomacy toward racist South Africa
- as "constructive engagement." Last year George Bush sent two
- high-level envoys to toast a Chinese leadership that had just
- slaughtered thousands of its citizens. The President explained
- that preserving U.S. leverage over future developments in that
- largest of Third World communist nations meant avoiding the
- temptation to "isolate" its government. Bush was properly
- criticized not for the principle he was enunciating but for the
- gratuitous, maladroit way he applied it. Simply keeping his
- ambassador in Beijing should have sufficed.
-
- By the same token, Bush could send ambassadors extraordinary
- and plenipotentiary to Kabul, Luanda, Havana and Hanoi to
- engage the leaders there constructively rather than treating
- them like avatars of Moscowcentric world commua phenomenon that
- no longer exists. For the U.S. to stop withholding or hedging
- recognition of those regimes would be a big step toward
- recognizing how much the world is changing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-