Last week an important discussion took place involving a bipartisan roster of former Secretaries of State:  Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell.  These well known foreign policy authorities from both sides of the aisle were asked what foreign policy advice they would provide to the next president - Democrat or Republican. 

Of course, not surprisingly, the former top diplomats argued that America must regain its position of leadership and respect in the international community.  Democrats and Republicans can both agree that America’s standing in the world has decreased significantly since 9/11.  There can also be broad agreement that America’s ability to influence other countries is related to the degree to which other countries respect its decisions and see it as a responsible partner in the international community. 

There was fairly broad agreement that there were several gestures that could be made that could dramatically demonstrate that America had indeed turned a new leaf:  close Guantanamo and explicitly forbid torture in all circumstances. 

From a strictly strategic view, our current policy that does not explicitly outlaw torture in all circumstances has probably provided more damage to the US in the form of increased resentment and hatred against the US than any security benefit.  This policy is not only a strategic failure, but also a moral one.  The cost to reversing this policy is relatively low.  Unfortunately, both George Bush and John McCain have refused to unequivocally state that the United States will not torture in all circumstances. 

The same goes for Guantanamo.  There is very little cost right now of shutting down this facility which has done tremendous damage to our reputation in the world that tremendously outweights any security benefit gained from the facility’s existence.  From a purely strategic point of view, we would lose little by closing Guantanamo down.  Fortunately, both John McCain and Barack Obama have committed to closing down Guantanamo.  I’d welcome statements by both candidates that this would be done within 100 days of entering office.  

So, we have two relatively easy reforms that have broad bipartisan support and would send a powerful message to the rest of the world.  There are, however, two others that I would present as equally powerful symbols that the new president would be smart to undertake.  Neither of my suggestions are as easy and quick as closing Guantanamo and renouncing torture.  However, they are processes that, if initiated with sufficient energy and resources, could dramatically alter the way America is perceived in the world just by prioritizing them much more dramatically.  These initiatives have already generated bipartisan support among many foreign policy thinkers. 

The first initiative would be a renewed commitment to the Israeli Palestinian peace process.  This was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.  Unfortunately, the current administration seems to have let this recommendation fall by wayside.  Getting the two sides to agree to a long term solution to this conflict is one of the more difficult foreign policy challenges of our time.  Yet, the continuing conflict remains one of the major justifications for violence against the West.  No, resolving this conflict will not magically eliminate terrorism or hatred towards the US.  However, I would argue that it would be significantly harder for terrorists to recruit allies that enable them to thrive.  Of course, I don’t pretend to believe that this decades old conflict will end within the first term of the next president.  However, a renewed effort and vigor in the effort by the United States would be a powerful symbolic message to the rest of the world. 

The second initiative which has achieved bipartisan support is a commitment by the United States to work towards a world free from nuclear weapons.  This, of course, is an even longer term process than the Israeli Palestinian peace process.  However, a visible and tangible commitment to reduce America’s reliance on nuclear weapons with the goal of eventual elimination would make a strong statement that the US is ready to lead by example on nonprofileration and not just interested in maintaining the current balance of power.  This is certainly a long term process with numerous strategic pitfalls.  However, setting an ambitious goal is the first step in the process – a step that so far both Democratic and Republican administrations have been unwilling to make.  Starting this process would send a powerful symbolic message to the rest of the world. 

As the former diplomats demonstrated, there can be broad bipartisan support on important symbolic policy changes that can substantially change the way America is viewed in the world.  Hopefully, when looking for low hanging fruit, the next president will also consider the symbolic value of starting more long term processes. 

Related posts:

1. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?
2. Bipartisanship still alive despite the health care debate
3. Process matters in building bipartisan support
4. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change
5. Politico: Bipolar on Bipartisanship?