The play between this two dominant view point in USA foreign Policy is aimed at recovering lost status. And it worth saying that, USA and the West has kept the world safe from major war similar to WW1 or 2 under the current international order. The diminishing outlook of USA hegemony if ever has left room for various competing ideas, approach and methods. Whilst the doves and hawks varies on how America tackle, engage on various world issues, the problem the two ideas presents lies within the state of total confusion in terms of messages sent out at varying times. This only worsen the already messy world politics and creates room for anarchy to thrive. For this reason firstly, it is important to consider the issue bothering on North Korea and Iran. Secondly, US hegemony and Trumps offshore balance of power.
The absence of consistency on tackling the first is reflected on haphazard policy objective given the competing interests for relevance between the two-hawks and doves.
At various times in the USA grand strategy-liberal internationalism, Isolationism and primacy, it has obvious that hawks and doves have played a role in deciding how hard or soft such policy should be pushed to achieve results but never to this level. The liberal internationalism grand strategy, much of President Obama policy were mostly dovish in approach which resulted in negotiations for Iran nuclear deal and adopting a strategic patience on North Korea. He even tried to resist pressure from third parties on the ‘red line in Syria’ to avoid a new war. Although he failed into the Libyan trap and was unable to find a peaceful solution that would bring the country back to stability.
The current approach of stick and carrot is totally unprecedented because it is applied to different actors with similar motives or objectives. The North has achieved nuclear ambition whilst the Iranian regime is trying to get one-so they are acting against NPT objectives. Therefore, the general accepted fact that both Iran and North Korea are working against the current established international order lead by the West. Whilst the USA uses Iran to correct the mistakes made on the issue of North Korea with many years of inaction or supposed uncoordinated action that finally resulted to current situation of North Korean possessing nuclear weapons. The policy runs the risk of eroding trust, creating doubt and torpedoing possibilities of denuclearization simply because, when the USA abandoned a well worked out program to curtail Iran nuclear ambitions-JCPOA. The North Korean regime on the other side, sees an opportunity to play a double game, given heightened skepticism on USA commitment to abide to agreement. So, denuclearization in principle remains unrealizable given the above except if the current White House administration finds a way to navigate through current miscalculation or quagmire in Iran nuclear deal. The reason is simple, trust which is the bedrock to international agreement has been eroded by none commitment to P5+1 accepted Treaty formula. To this end, we can read between the line to point to what states potentially can do or what their motives might be, although not totally laid out.
Now given the above consideration, the big question is: what is the tactics or end game brought in by the North Korean in negotiations with or without knowing the intentions of the USA? what is Iran going to do next after deciding to breach the agreement? Does North Korea hope to fully denuclearize or is the regime seeking opportunities beyond this maybe sanctions relief? My bet would be that on the last question, the North would play hard ball too, this is because the game of indecision-dovish and hawkish proponents within the admission has left the White House between the rocks and hard place. The first and second question resultant outcome arose from the indecisions resulting from the competing approach of the two approach.The stalled Venezuela situation is a case in point.
With all options for Iran being screwed tight, the latest followed the sanction on Iran foreign Minister, we might be back to a long unending journey of trials and errors, where Iran dogs-in and USA adopt a measure stricter or less. My bet is, the current carrot and stick adopted by Trump administration is hard to predict of possible outcome. The Revanchism of Bolton who represents the hawks and the moderate in the person the President Trump, are in battle of unending outcome steeped in errors and without insurance. The international community should brace for a long, protracted journey. The possibility of a results with the current position being maintained-sending mixed messages that requires rather a clear approach, is simply ambiguous and far from over. Although I can bet, Trump would not succumb to war anytime soon but this approach leave nothing but confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment