A fresh start in foreign policy

I HAVE always associated Richard Haass with the traditionalist wing of the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment. He is more in the company of Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and George H.W. Bush than the neoconservatives who have exerted such influence over the current president with their imperial notions of spreading democracy by military power and regime change. Haass is a member of what has been contemptuously called the ''realist community" by some in the current administration.

Having served in national security and the State Department for the last three Republican presidents, it is clear that Haass thinks the present administration has lost the way. Now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Haass has written a new book, ''The Opportunity," a guide to what the United States should be doing in this era, unique in the past several hundred years. Today there are no classic struggles for domination, no major territorial conflicts, and no great ideological fault lines that so dominated the 20th century. Iraq notwithstanding, the world is still relatively receptive to American leadership if -- and this is a big if -- the United States is willing to make ''significant changes" to its foreign policy.

Haass does not downplay the threat of catastrophic terrorism. Indeed, his book begins with a prediction that the United States will suffer from ''another major act of terrorism, possibly one involving a weapon of mass destruction." But nonetheless, Haass sees an opportunity for cooperation among the powers under US leadership. ''Integration" is the word he uses.

Some of Haass's dictums include: ''Democracy is difficult to spread and impossible to impose. Military primacy is not to be confused with security, much less invulnerability." He writes of the ''unsuitability of American democracy for an imperial role" and holds that ''expensive wars of choice," such as Vietnam and perhaps Iraq, ''that call for open-ended sacrifice for uncertain ends are simply not sustainable."

The unilateral approach to foreign policy cannot work, Haass maintains. ''No single country, no matter how powerful, can contend successfully on its own with transnational challenges," Haass writes, and ''any such effort will fail."

Promoting democracy is not a panacea. ''It is neither desirable nor practical to make democracy promotion a foreign policy doctrine," says Haass. ''Too many pressing threats," Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, as well as transnational issues, must take precedence over concerns about how people ''choose to govern themselves." Democracy means ''power distributed," and elections alone will not guarantee that. ''As a rule, 'electocracy' should not be confused with democracy," according to Haass.

''A democratic Palestine is certainly desirable, but it should not be viewed as essential," Haass contends. ''Requiring that Palestine be democratic would put off any peace negotiations for years, which would only fuel radicalism and violence. . . . What should matter most is not the character of the future government of Palestine so much as its willingness and ability to sign a peace treaty with Israel and live up to its obligations."

Nor is regime change by force a viable option, especially for North Korea or Iran. ''We must adjust our expectations to a long-term approach and abandon the fantasy of a quick fix," Haass says. ''Regime replacement" is often more difficult than regime change, as we may be seeing in Iraq, and ''prolonged occupations" are doomed. ''Those who seek to spread democracy will have to find alternative weapons."

As for Iraq, Haass says that the war was unnecessary and that Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and ''the human rights situation in Iraq in 2002 did not warrant armed intervention."

But aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes, says Haass, but that's ''akin in a business setting to looking only at the revenues and ignoring expenses."

''For all of its power, there is virtually nothing the United States can do better without others," Haass writes. The United States needs partners; ''unilateralism is rarely a viable option."

Haass mentions that Bush the father ''spoke of a new world order but never defined it." Reading this book , one feels that Haass has just filled that gap. Now if only the son would listen.

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.