Customer Reviews

The Opportunity

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Richard Haass, formerly head of the State Department's policy planning staff (2001-2003), represented the minority opinion within an administration dominated by neoconservative hawks. He subscribes to the more moderate and traditional Republican view of international relations known as the "realist" school. As such he falls in line with such notables as Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger.

The realist school, indeed, derives most of its principles from Henry Kissinger who was one of the greatest practitioners of realplitik in the last century. The foundational models of the realist school were the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878 in which the great powers carved up Europe into spheres of influence, known as the "concert of Europe."

Now we have another such opportunity, says Haass. He believes multilateralism among the great powers of today would strengthen, not compromise the United States. The great powers he has in mind are China, Russia, Europe, Japan, and India, and in a lesser role the emerging powers of Brazil, South Korea, and South Africa. Haass sees the world as a place where great powers in cooperation set the rules and impose them collectively on the rest.

In Haass' view, the advocacy of democracy would play a less prominent role in foreign policy, instead, order, stablity, and cooperation would be paramount. China and Russia would have more latitude for cracking down on dissent within in exchange for membership in the exclusive club. At the same time, the US would not undertake expensive wars to impose regime change and democracy. Supporting it as we did in Lebanon and Ukraine is about as far as Haass thinks we should be going.

Imposing democracy at gunpoint and doing it unilaterally are not viable foreign policy goals. Although it is true that we do not need a permission slip from the UN to defend ourselves, as was the case for the invasion of Afghanistan. The case for invading Iraq has turned out to be a war of choice, one that Haass is warning against. Even though the US has a bigger defense budget than all the great powers combined, it still has not been able to turn that power into influence. Influence comes only through multilateralism and cooperation.

There is really no alternative to multilateralism, as the Bush Administration is finding out in its second term. After having lost influence from the invasion and occupation of Iraq, they are now working with Europe to halt nuclear weapons in Iran and with the Six Parties to do the same in North Korea. In a globalizing world of cross-border flows of people, goods, money, ideas, viruses, weapons, etc., global integration is taking place no matter how desparately nations try to hold on to sovereignty. A "concert of international society" may be pie-in-the-sky, as one Amazon reviewer put it, but it is important to have clear guideposts because the pie-on-earth is already in the making. This is a very thoughtful book that I would recommend to the general reader as well as to the policy wonk.

Richard Haas has served under Ronald Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 (as an advisor to Colin Powell), and is now with a leading think-tank in Washington. Over the years he has written some great books, reflecting on US foreign policy, and this book is the latest, released earlier this year without much fanfare (or, alas, commercial success).

The basic premise of "The Opportunity" (242 pages) is that the US in conjunction with other major powers such as China, Russia and the EU have a window of opportunity to steer the world in a direction of global cooperation and wealth, the key words here beinf "in conjunction". Haass makes a number of excellent observations in his book, such as:

on globalization: "The choice before the US is between multilateralism and either a gradual return to a world of great power competition or a world overwhelmed by disruptive forces, or both".

on terrorism: "It would be a mistake to conclude that there is global consensus on this matter. ... [O]ne man's terrotist is another's freedom fighter".

on North Korea: Haass urges the US and others to set realistic goals to the North Korean government, with real consequences if those goals are not met.

on the China/Taiwan conflict: "If the mainland were to use military force [for reunification], it should not be allowed to successfully reunify the country. Allowing it would set a terrible precedent for the region and beyond".

on the US Security Council: Haass points out that it is ineffective because its composition reflects the world order half a century ago, not today's.

on Iraq: Haass feels the invasion was "legal" but lacks "legitimacy", and moreover when a cost/benefit is made (considering how much the war has cost so far in expenses and lives lost, "the war against Iraq was unwarranted".

This is a terrific book all around. Haass makes the excellent point in the concluding chapter that "for all its power, there is virtually nothing the US can do better without others. The US needs partners; unilateralism is rarely a viable option". Well said, and this book is highly recommended!

Richard Haass, the President of the Council of Foreign Relations, argues that with the immense resources and unparalleled power of the United States there is a unique oppurtunity to shape the international system and manage the process of globalization that is favorable to American interests. To do so, American policymakers must be serious about maintaining America's global role by pursuing a judicious and realistic foreign policy that seeks to strengthen American global leadership to better manage the process of globalization. Haass argues that the effects of globalization are and will to continue to be so extensive that careful management of globalization is an imperative task that only American leadership can accomplish.

Haass comes from a different school of thought that much of the Bush administration. Though serving as Director of Policy Planning during the first two years of George W. Bush's State Department, Haass espouses a worldview very different from the Manichaen ideological perspective of much of the Bush administration's influential neoconservatives. Haass comes from the old Republican tradition that emphasizes realism and international cooperation which is a refreshing perspective in this turbulent time.

The Oppurtunity is one of the best books I have read in a long time. One can't but help to agree with Haass's compelling arguments and interesting insights. It is essential reading to understand America's global position.

I really enjoyed this book. Looking at Haass's credentials, you can see he knows what he's talking about.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why I liked this book so much until I saw a post on the blog DemocracyArsenal.org by Heather Hurlburt, a former Clinton speechwriter. She was struck by just how optimistic Haass was. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising considering the book's title, but it's refreshing post 9/11.

Hurlburt continues: I say progressives should take an optimism transplant from this Rockefeller Republican. No, not false "the Iraqi insurgency is on its last legs" optimism but a confidence that we can go out and engage our problems, not just hunker down before them (President Bush on global warming, for example).

Good point. Read the book, maybe the enthusiasm is infectious.

Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent foreign policy organization. Prior to taking that position, Haass was the principal advisor to Colin Powell. He also served as senior Middle East advisor to President George H. W. Bush, in Reagan's State Department, and in the Pentagon during the Carter administration.

In spite of many mounting challenges we face as a globe, including the real threat of another terrorist attack, spread of nuclear weapons, burgeoning rates of HIV/AIDS, and millions living in abject poverty, Haass argues that we are living in a unique era. This era, in spite of all the complex difficulties, offers the United States and the other major powers an opportunity to shape the course of the twenty-first century and "bring about a world that is to a striking degree characterized by peace, prosperity, and freedom for most of the globe's countries and peoples."

War between states is less likely than for much of the past two centuries, and we are increasingly entering globalization. There are more democratic or nearly democratic nations than at any previous point in history (more than 100), and the United States holds much of the power, militarily, economically, and politically.

Yet we are also vulnerable. The growing population and economic strength in Asia and Southeast Asia are considerable. We must position ourselves to integrate with these superpowers (such as Japan, China and India, in particular) so that we can grasp this moment to make the world better for ourselves and for all humanity.

To accomplish the lofty goals Haass lays out in The Opportunity, the United States must begin working with other nations multilaterally instead of only looking out for itself. We need partners. And to earn the trust of partners, the United States must develop a coherent foreign policy. It would be based on three dimensions:
1) It would aim to "create a cooperative relationship among the world's major powers" built on "a common commitment to promoting certain principles and outcomes."
2) It would translate this commitment into quantifiable and effective arrangements and actions.
3) It would work to bring other nations, peoples, and organizations into the integrated community so that "they may come to enjoy the benefits of physical security, economic opportunity, and political freedom."

This book clearly and concisely discusses the major challenges we face and why we can't "go it alone..." the era of complete American supremecy is over, so we need to learn how to "play well with others," before it's too late.

Richard Haas enjoys an impressive high profile. He is the President of the Council of Foreign Relations and served on a number of high posts in previous administrations. In this brief book, Haas provides a number of arguments to sustain his perspective on handling America's foreign policy. According to Haas, America should restore its previous policy of containment, détente and trying to defeat world dictators by eroding their ability to sustain their tyrannical rule. A case in point is Saddam Hussain.
Haas argues that had the United States opted for tightening the grip around Saddam's neck by cutting off his trade links with neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan and subsidizing the losses these nations might have incurred due to such trade interruption, the confrontation with Saddam Hussain could have cost the United States much less treasure and blood. Haas should have said, however, how he believes sanctions could have ever affected Saddam. If the Iraqis were to live spending their last one penny, that penny would be in Saddam's pocket and he would have maintained his power despite his people's poverty by murdering every one of them. Saddam's rule was not based on economic prosperity or illegal trade with Jordan, Turkey and Syria. His rule was one of tyranny and brutal oppression and the only way to topple him was through the usage of power.
Now Haas believes that despite Saddam's tyranny, his rule was not disruptive of America's national security. At this point, America should question the moral ground at large of its relations with Saddam. Should he have been removed for his threat on America only or shouldn't the world's superpower go after the world's bloodiest dictators to save his people of his murderous grip?
Another point Haas failed to answer, assuming containing dictators that posed no threat to America's security was a good idea: how would America be able to fight poverty and tyranny that breed terror with such containment policies? Saudi Arabia is America's good ally and yet 15 of its citizens, frustrated by their rulers' tyranny and oppression, committed 9/11. Most of these Arab dictatorships are in the first place based on preaching anti-Americanism to divert their people's frustration with domestic problems and blame other nations, on top of them America, for their agony.
Haas should have reconsidered his call on the foreign policy to go back to the old school that had proved in the past - time and again - its futility. And before he urges the administration to abandon its current military confrontation strategies that might bring improved home security, he should have come up with a third option that could have been better than the two only ways currently at the disposal of Washington.

Author Richard N. Haass uses this book to expose the pivotal moment in history in which America now exists. He does this by guiding the reader through events of the modern era that have allowed the US to be in a position to make the world a better place. At first, I thought that this book was extremely idealistic, then I realized that Haass was setting me up, as a reader, to see just what a powerful position America was in to actually make these changes.

In this book, he tackles such issues as sovereignty, terrorism, international cooperation, economic integration and the lessons of Iraq. He states that isolationism and unilateralism will only detriment US authority and long-term preeminence. We live in a global world and cannot afford to continue policies that hurt and anger our neighbors. This is not just for their benefit, but that of the US as well. He highlights the point of US leadership in a cooperative world. This leadership should lead by example and not fear other counties, but encourage their growth as partners rather than have a polarized balance-of-power political outlook. I really enjoyed this book and although I felt it neglected the impact of other political and religious beliefs that might negatively impact America, it was an overall insightful book.

After 9-ll-01, this Harvard-educated, experienced civil servant worked as director of policy planning to develop the National Security Strategy published in September 2002. A new audit shows "weaknesses exposed" in the United States Homeland Security. He has also served in advisory and positions of importance concerning security for at least four U.S. presidents, starting in the Pentagon when Jimmy Carter was President. He worked in the State Department during Ronald Reagan's term and for both Bush administrations as senior Middle East advisor and ambassador. The first Bush administration called itself "New World Order," but it didn't happen. So, who knows how much of what Mr. Haass is proposing is so much think-tank results or actual possibility. I think he contradicts himself at many instances.

After an address in March 2004 to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, this book in which he tauts America's 'opportunity to define an era' took shape in his mind and on the printed page. "When the United Nations was conceived in the 1940s, the United States was one of five permanent members of the Security Council accorded veto power. The United States was first among equals then and remains so today." That was over sixty years and many wars ago. "It is easier to wage and win wars than to consolidate and negotiate peace," he writes.

Terrorism, disease, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction constitute the greatest threats to security and stability. Global climate changes are nature's threat to the very existence of this earth, certainly as we now experience the effects of global warming. "Terrorists are increasing in number, and at the same time they are certainly increasing in sophistication and the ability to cause great harm." There are viruses of another sort, "those carried in cyperspace that infect computers, which wreck havoc on a modern society."

History is determined by the degree to which major powers of the era can agree on the rules of the road. "Charles de Gaulle is said once to have turned to the fashionable woman seated next to him at a dinner party and, trying to make conversation, asked her what she thought of history. She said something to the effect that she loved history. DeGaulle, shocked that anyone could see history in a positive light in the wake of two world wars, coolly replied, "I don't."

Opportunity coexists with necessity and urgency. He says that it is not inevitable that things will turn out right. It could possibly turn out to be an era of "great promise, one defined by lasting peace, improving standards of living, and greater freedom. Let's hope his vision of the future is right on the dollar and not half-cocked in Outer Space.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that the old system of competing mutual alliances was finished. The idea of the balance of power had been central to diplomatic thinking since the time of Louis the XIV. However what does America do now that it is the sole superpower?

Haass suggests that one thing it can't do is to have an empire. The current US forces are struggling to keep order in two small backwaters. To have an empire would mean an immense transfer of funds into the defence budeget. What then to do?

Haass suggests that what America should do is to form some form of cooperative understanding with Europe and the emerging powers of India and China. If there was such an understanding then instead of the world slipping back into a balance of competing alliances such as occured in the Cold War period when either India or China becomes strong enough to challenge the US. This notion of understandings would enable the world to limit militiary expenditure control the spread of weapons of mass destruction combat terrorism and to be able to deal with humanitarian crisis.

Haass suggests that currently the US is highly dependant on oil. This has shaped its foriegn policy so that maintaining a flow of oil is one of the key elements of its national aims. In reducing dependence on oil there is the potential for a more flexible policy with interaction between nations that are more mutually benificial.

It is of course strange that what could be seen as "leftie do goodism " comes from a right wing former member of Bush's administration. However Haass makes some points in suggesting that now is a time to talk about how the world should progress. The United Nations is a flawed body consisting of many nations which are undemocratic. Agreements between the more significant players is a way of avoiding unilateralism and not creating a massive anti-Americanism but avoids having to take countries like Zimbabwe seriously.

Probably there is something to what he says. It is desirable that some rules be put in place or some system to deal with issues like Rwanda and Kosovo. It is also more sensible that countries use their rescources to help their populations rather than in arms races.

It is also probably good for America if it developed a more consultative style to its policy decisions.

If one were to read the Opportunity without much thought about what the author is actually saying, it would be very easy to find yourself being very uncritical and also agreeing with everything Haass is saying. A year ago, I probably would have done the same thing. This is because most people would agree with the main ideas presented in the book, mainly that the U.S. has the chance to really shape the future for the better. By working with other countries on important issues, Haass states that we can avoid slipping back into an era defined by superpower struggles. Haass goes through a variety of topics with this theme in mind such as handling terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and economic integration. Classic State Department language, and again, on the surface everything sounds great.

However, Haass himself states several times that this opportunity will not remain indefinitely and that the U.S. must act now to avoid the passing of this opportunity. This is indeed the book's biggest flaw because the philosophy and approach Haass is talking about is barely utilized by the Bush administration. When he was working in the State Department, Haass must have felt like he was talking to a brick wall. Haass never comes out and says whether or not this opportunity will pass in the next three years or not, but the point is that given the Bush administration's tendancies, next to nothing Haass presents will be given serious consideration. I'm not sure if this is something we can really fault Haass for, but unless this book is intended as a desperate plea for the U.S. to change its current course with hopes of garnering mass support, the book just ends up being the written extension of what the more traditional conservative realists are going through right now under Bush.

There are also other random issues that Haass brings up in the book that I strongly disagree with. The first is that Haass spends a considerable amount of ink on the differences between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. He speaks of how the U.S. was taking such a higher moral ground than the Soviets and how Russian policies were unsustainable. I find this baffling quite honestly. Take a quick tour through South America during the 80's and tell me what the U.S. was doing was any better than what the Soviets were. Yes, we won the Cold War, but don't try for one second to pretend the U.S. was acting like a patron saint.

The other remark that really angered me was on page 188 where Haass refers to "the bogus but politically effective argument that sanctions were hurting innocent Iraqi people." Either Haass has absolutely no idea what happened in Iraq during the 90's or he's completely ignoring what happened in order to relieve the U.S. of culpability (which actually sounds just like his reasoning for the Cold War).

In conclusion, Haass makes a lot of nice sounding statements, but underneath it all is some very unsettling assumptions being made about the U.S. role in the world. Yes, the U.S. would probably be more successful with someone like Haass in charge compared to Bush, but even though it would be a step up, doesn't mean this country would be out of the woods.