Are there lessons today’s administration could learn from Nixon’s foreign policy?
By Micah Hanks
History already tells us that much of the concern today over hostilities in North Korea were just as bad–if not worse–three decades ago during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Still, only recently has it become apparent how deadly things nearly ended up getting; the release of documents pertaining to a 1969 conflict after the gunning down of a US spy plane by North Korea indicate the hostilities nearly provoked a US nuclear strike.
Addressed to then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, the newly-released memorandum from Washington’s National Security Archive details “pre-co-ordinated options for the selective use of tactical nuclear weapons against North Korea…with a yield of 70 kt each to neutralize the North Korean air order of battle in response to a North Korean air attack on South Korea.”
The strike was aimed at disabling 16 key North Korean air fields, and corroboration from one former US bomber pilot, Bruce Charles, indicates pilots were being prepared for a bombing with explosives twenty times the size of the device that leveled Hiroshima. Fortunately, Kissinger and Nixon abandoned the notion of a nuclear strike, and before the end of his first term Nixon had made strides in promoting nuclear peace internationally. Visits to Communist China and the Soviet Union helped strengthen foreign ties, encouraging détente among once-hostile nations.
To contrast this with what could have been a hawkish approach, in retrospect some might argue that military force against North Korea then could have prevented international tensions that would continue in the following decades (and which still cause concern in the international community today). However, Nixon likely wouldn’t have wanted to convey a message to other potential enemy nations and world powers that America was trigger happy, particularly during the height of the Cold War. As a result, foreign relations became one of the great high points of his administration.
In truth, Nixon’s hope all along had been that his primary military concern–the war in Vietnam–might be better contained with the aid and support of a stronger alliance with world powers like China and the Soviet Union. Applying this logic to modern foreign policy, perhaps President Obama’s “New Start” nuclear arms treaty with Russia is also a step in the right direction. By advocating stronger ties and better arms control with nations like Russia, perhaps similar diplomatic measures could be extended toward countries like China in the future also. Still, the treaty has been decried by some Republicans–namely Mitt Romney in a recent Washington Post article where he called it “Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake yet.” Senator Richard G. Lugar, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, strongly advocates it instead, saying Romney “appears unaware of arms control history and context.” Additionally, even Henry Kissinger has endorsed the treaty which, according to Luger, further points to its historical merit in this context.
So whether or not anyone in the White House today would admit to following in Nixon’s footsteps, perhaps Obama’s foreign policy is improving nonetheless. Plus, with present US/Israeli relations almost as low as Obama’s approval ratings in recent polls, it’s quickly becoming imperative. If nothing else, by increasing communication and negotiations with foreign nations on this level, maybe a bit of the “transparency” so many Americans have been waiting to see from this administration will finally begin to trickle down and take effect also… let’s hope so, at least.
