The revolution in Egypt and the revolt in Tunisia now followed by demonstrations in Jordan and Yemen have brought into the focus of the American public the basic conflict in the philosophy of US foreign policy. Are we the leaders of the free world dedicated to protecting, defending and encouraging democracy everywhere in the world; or, are we going to have a foreign policy based entirely on our economic and strategic national interests?
From Washington to McKinley our policy was dominated by an idealistic attachment to the democratic slogans of our Revolution. America entered the world of realpolitik and imperialism with McKinley-TR and Taft as we secured colonies and became a player on the world stage. Woodrow Wilson returned to the policy of idealism -- “make the world safe for democracy”. At the end of WWI the free world nations, feeling they had defeated monarchism and autocracy, looked to the US to lead - we demurred and retreated into isolationism. At the conclusion of WWII with the defeat of Nazism, fascism and militarism the free world looked to the US to lead, and as the only one who could we did. Ultimately we became strong enough economically and militarily, that while intervention in Afghanistan helped implode the Soviet Union from within, we survived Vietnam and by 1990 not only led the free world but became the lone world superpower.
Now we face a different world. There are other economic powers that are rising rapidly: China, India and Brazil. Our allies are unified in the European Union. Militarily China is rising and there are a growing number of new nuclear powers; e.g. North Korea and Pakistan and soon Iran.
W hat is to be our guiding foreign policy philosophy in this new century. Do we imitate the political fifty state strategy and concern ourselves in the events in 190 nations as leader of Democracy -- if so we should be consistent and trade and deal with only those of the 190 that practice democracy (not just pro-forma elections but daily human rights for men and women) Or, should we practice a foreign policy that seeks to strengthen our economic and strategic security? We could of course do both by recognizing that our economic security is best strengthened by trading with other democratic nations and our strategic security is enhanced by using our military to protect those trading partners and thus our own national interests.
We must of course maintain a strong relationship with our geographic neighbors Canada and Mexico. In the western hemisphere we should focus on Brazil -- the rising economic power of South America. We must keep our historic relationship with all Europe and with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Turkey as they increasingly become part of Europe. In the Middle East we have choices: democracy -- which means we maintain support for Israel, or economic interests which translates to Arab oil. I for one favor supporting Israel whose people will always support us, rather than find ourselves always in bed with Arab dictators to secure access to their oil. We should support the South Asian economic power house of India and Bangladesh both of which nations are committed to democracy. In the Pacific we keep strong alliances with the democracies: Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. If that seems to be containing China so be it. We should recognize the reality that China is the only nation capable of competing with us militarily, it clearly competes with us economically, and it is still dominated by a communist based philosophy which is anti democratic and anti the things America stands for.
I believe we can be true to our democratic ideals and still secure our national interests. We can support democracy in Africa, e.g. Ivory Coast and south Sudan and in doing so weaken the radical Islamic fundamentalists and the Chinese imperialists.
We cannot afford a foreign policy that says we like everyone because then everyone will like ust. Our European democratic friends thought they could do that in the 1930's by liking (appeasing) the German, Italian and Spanish fascists. That didn’t work out too well. And when Winston Churchill warned the English war would come of that policy he was attacked and ridiculed and England slept
We can’t wait until the world is again divided half free and half enslaved for a WWIII that would annihilate us all. We can’t police the entire world but we can remain the “arsenal of democracy”; and a beacon of hope for liberty and the rights of mankind. Let the Chinese and the Islamic radicals know that if they want to compete with us they must compete with us in the realm of ideas because they will lose in any other arena.
2-1-2011
No comments:
Post a Comment