American Foreign Policy has been a little unsure of itself recently. And by recently I mean for the past several decades. We seem to have taken a posture that is focused on short term results rather than long term goals. The recent revolutions which started in Tunisia, and then spread to Egypt is a wonderful opportunity for us to review our posture with respect to the rest of the world.

This comment is really precipitated by my listening to the discussions of the talking heads which are become more and more irritating (all TV channels, all the time). There are a few thoughtful commentators (David Gergen, Mark Shields, and David Brooks). In general, the commentators have been saying that the Arab leaders, and other heads of government throughout the world, are seriously disturbed about our willingness to abandon Hosni Mubarak, former President of Egypt, who was our ally for the past thirty years. Then they raise the specter of whether the State Department knows what it is doing, etc. Our policy was too slow in Egypt….no, perhaps they said it was too fast. The United States acted with too much strength…no, perhaps its actions were too weak. Hmmm. I don’t remember any more. Their comments are simply Nonsense. Balderdash.

This is the time for the United States to use its knowledge of history and formulate a policy which recognizes and understands that we have a unique position in this world. We are strong, and should use that strength in a way that causes hesitation in the postures of world leaders toward their own populations. I am not advocating that we make any attempt to insert ourselves into the internal affairs of any country. I am suggesting that all we have to do is to point out that their internal policies may have consequences for them in dealing with the United States. What is that you say? I am threatening? No, I am not. I think that a more appropriate historical phrase (attributed to African or Native American sources) might be “Speak softly but carry a Big Stick.” This phrase was used in slightly different form by Teddy Roosevelt.

The bedrock of the United States internal affairs is the concept of democracy and representative government. Each American has the opportunity to attempt to make a life for themselves using their skills, forbearance, and efforts. This is a good thing, and it seems, desired by young people all over the world. Is there a hint of a message here?

Unfortunately the day-to-day needs for interactions with the world’s governments sometimes requires doing business with harsh repressive regimes. Egypt, Iran and North Korea spring immediately to mind. There are others. The United States cannot take a posture that refuses to deal with these countries. We must deal with them for a myriad of reasons: military, economic, health, environment, etc. So we should deal with them, just as we should have and did deal with Egypt for the past thirty years.

In focusing on our relationship with Mubarak and Egypt we should have supported him to keep peace, it at all possible, in the Middle East. But it should have been clear to him and the rest of the Egyptian leaders that our relationship with them was a marriage of convenience. Fundamentally, we would always support the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the Egyptian people in creating a democratic, representative government and society. If the leaders did not like or appreciate our stance, or our candor (presented privately and perhaps publicly) for that matter, we could shrug our shoulders (metaphorically, and perhaps literally) and say, “Ok. Then no more aid. No more support. Nothing. No favored nation status. You are on your own.” Every single despot throughout the world who rules their populations with an iron hand would pause and reflect upon the possible implications of such a posture by the United States.

In my view of the present and the possible future I again turn to my base: technology. Why were the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the soon coming future revolutions in all dictatorial regimes, political and religious) successful? Communications. The Internet. The Cell Phone. Young Egyptians (70% are under thirty years of age) saw no future for themselves. And they found out that peoples in other parts of the world could have different lives. Why not Egyptian citizens?

The Egyptian government made an attempt to suppress communications. They failed. Of course for those who use servers and wire connections, those could be stopped. But satellites? Nope. Wireless communications allowed a continuing flow of information to the Egyptian people (the young people who understand and use communications in daily operations of all kinds) so they knew that they had the world supporting them. Fifty years ago all communications could have been stifled. Not today.

The leaders of countries all over the world (repressive and not) are old. They think of technology as a marvel. They don’t understand that technology and technology communications have made the techniques of controlling their populations, as it was done for the past three millennia, unstable and collapsing. Censorship at all levels is, today and even more tomorrow, impossible to implement. Censorship implies control, and that is fast disappearing. Leaders will have to have general support from their populations. A new world is not just approaching; it is here.

While my comments are focused on political regimes, I think this logic is also applicable to all religious-based regimes as well. Iran revolted a few years ago, and it failed. But does that mean that it won’t happen, again? Hmmm.

The United States Foreign Policy should be to deal with repressive regimes as required. But, they should never support them for short term political advantage. The unstoppable, overwhelming sea change is underway, and the people of the world, Northern and Southern hemispheres, will look to us, the United States, for support in having a better life, more opportunity to prosper, and support in achieving that goal.