The Reluctant Wilsonian: President Clinton and Foreign Policy

THE RELUCTANT WILSONIAN: PRESIDENT CLINTON AND FOREIGN POUCY RobertB. Zoellick L residentWilliamJefferson Clinton, a studied and practical politician, has a fingertip feel for historical traditions and folkways. So the president knows, or atleast intuits, thateveryAmerican president's foreign policy, and especiallyanyDemocrat's, mustbe attentivetothe idealistic internationalism bequeathed by one of his predecessors, the twenty-eighth president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, in his recent realpolitik treatise, Henry Kissingeracknowledges thatthe high-mindedAmerican exceptionalist tradition ofWoodrow Wilson was more appealing to Americans than the power politics of Theodore Roosevelt and has remained the bedrock of American foreign-policy thinking ever since.1 President Wilson was elected in 1912 with about 42 percent of the popular vote, after the Republican party split between Roosevelt and Taft. The first Democratic president after decades of Republican ascendancy, except for the brief interlude of Grover Cleveland, Wilson launched an active domestic legislative program. President Wilson also assumed office as the old international structures were changing. Rejecting the traditional patterns of diplomacy, Wilson was committed to forging a new foreign policy system based on international law, peace, and democracy. This cause led to the creation ofthe League ofNations, whose spirit infuses the United Nations today. Wilson resisted power politics, even blocking efforts to increase America's small military after the outbreak of 1 Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 52. Robert B. Zoellick served as undersecretary of state and White House deputy chiefof staffduring the Bush administration and as counselor to the Secretary ofthe Treasury during the Reagan administration. 1 2 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1994 World War I in 1914. Nevertheless, Wilson became an active interventionist, sending U.S. troops into Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and eventually, the World War itself, calling for "peace without victory." Yet President Clinton seems to be a reluctant Wilsonian. He knows that while Woodrow Wilson won reelection, he did so on the basis ofhis domestic record and because "he kept us out of war." President Clinton is aware that Woodrow Wilson faced a tragic end because his international plans were rebuffed. Clinton also saw, first hand, that foreign policy dragged down President Lyndon Johnson, and, to a degree, President Jimmy Carter. And foreign policy success did not spare President George Bush. Bill Clinton is loathe to abandon global engagement, the Wilsonian tradition, both because ofhis own internationalistoudook and the political cost ofabdicating U.S. leadership. He has made thoughtful foreign speeches, with rich references to America's traditions and its hopes for the future. But after eighteen months, President Clinton's foreign policy appears to be a series of fitful responses to world events and trends that continue to demand attention. He too frequently fails to follow up his speeches with considered or consistent actions. The president seems not to have the interest or time to synthesize approaches to complicated issues, much less formulate a strategic outlook We certainly cannotexpect all American presidents to be grand strategists. Nor do they have to be in order to manage an American foreign policy that seeks to promote U.S. ideals and interests. Moreover, we should not be surprised that foreign policy is not this president's primary interest, given his background, record, and stated priorities. Nevertheless, the demanding reality is that as the world steps from one era into another, the role of the United States remains vital. America, through action or inaction, is framing the future. President Clinton's intelligence, ability to see interrelationships, and political skills should give him the capability to be an influential force in foreign policy. He is reportedly effective in presenting his case both in small sessions and in larger groups such as the 1993 G-7 summit in Tokyo and the 1993 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (apec) summit in Seattle. So, apart from the president's episodic interest, what has gone wrong? Four FL·ws Four flaws have contributed to the administration's foreign policy problems and limited the scope ofits successes. First, the Clinton administration is THE RELUCTANT WILSONIAN 3 struggling with the question of when to intervene in international disputes, particulatly when the use of force may be involved. No doubt the cases in which these questions arise...