The
Foreign Policy of the United States has been non-partisan in the traditional sense
of political parties. There really
hasn’t been a Federalist or Democratic or Whig or Republican foreign
policy. At different times in our nation’s
history the two parties at the time divided over foreign policy issues e.g.
recognition of new republics; acquisition of overseas territories, support of
combatants in European or Pacific wars.
The political parties came together whenever the country itself faced a
war although really only in the case of the two 20th century World Wars.
But
there has been a divide in our approach to foreign affairs. And it has been not political party driven
but philosophical and ideological driven.
In the early days of the Republic the two parties took sides, one pro
British and one pro French but in reality one pro orderly monarchial government
versus one accepting of somewhat chaotic republican government. The underpinning argument within our
Presidential administrations has been whether to conduct the nation’s foreign
policy committed to the Idealism of supporting the founding principles of our
Republic. To do so meant recognizing
only freely elected regimes and insisting on a minimal respect for basic human
rights before we would trade and interact with a regime. To do so meant not recognizing a foreign
powers takeover of a neighboring nation, e.g. when we refused for fifty years
to recognize the Soviet Union’s absorption of the three Baltic nations.
As
Woodrow Wilson and FDR and later JFK raised the idealistic banner of collective
security and world organization many took another tack that of Isolationism. America they argued should mind it own
business and not be involved, “entangled”, with any other nations. Of course most of the isolationists amended
that to favor being involved in the problems of the western hemisphere. They simply wanted to stay out of Europe’s
old feuds and for primarily racial reasons saw no reason for the US to be
involved in Africa or Asia. But
Isolationism conflicted with the economic interests of the United States. The need for the new nation to sell its goods
overseas and then when the country became large enough and rich enough the
desire to buy goods from overseas. It
was difficult to involve the nation in the economic situations of other
countries and then not take an interest in their security and order. In the
Middle East today oil not only drives our cars it drives American foreign
policy in the region. Some reject that and hold to the idealism of the Arab
Spring or the re-establishment of Israel.
As
idealism began to defeat Isolationism, helped by the World War II isms of
Nazism, Fascism and Militarism followed by the post war threat of Communism it
led, one almost thinks inevitably, (although I don’t agree that it was
inevitable) to Interventionism. The
belief that America the strongest military nation on the planet after World War
II and the only super power after 1991 should intervene to bring peace and
order, freedom and democracy everywhere in the world.
As we
enter the second decade of the twenty first century whither America’s foreign
policy? Which of the I isms will we
follow? I believe it should be a
practical mix. Of course Idealism should
guide us because that has been the guiding light of this nation since pilgrims
came to Plymouth and cavaliers to Jamestown.
We should support democratic people-inspired movements in the Arab
states, and in Burma and throughout the world.
But support can mean many things.
It does not mean that every time people rise up against an oppressive
regime we need to intervene militarily.
We can encourage others to carry the burden and play a supportive role
as we did successfully in Libya. Or
perhaps we have to lead and rally other nations behind us as we did in Kuwait
and in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Interventionism should be a philosophy of last resort. And it should be used in limited circumstances
when absolutely necessary to save lives and only when no other course of action
presents itself. President Obama’s
sending of 200 expert trained fighters to aid three African nations in their
attempt to root out an evil warlord was the right thing to do: limited intervention in support of other
governments for a humanitarian reason.
But
the U.S. must also learn how to disengage.
We need a fourth ism. We need to accept when
we have accomplished what we can and then withdraw or disengage for those who
find the W word too defeatist. In
Afghanistan we destroyed Al Qaeda and enabled the people of that country to
free themselves from Taliban tyranny.
Now it is up to them to build a nation and root out corruption. If they cannot then history tells us they
will succumb to yet another regime of dictation. The United States of America has no long term
strategic interest in the nation of Afghanistan. China and India are relieved that we have
taken the Afghan problem off their hands so they can compete with us
economically. Isolationists would oppose
a long term strategic agreement with Afghanistan - Idealists would and should
also. Only the McCain type
Interventionists (everywhere all the time) applaud this ten year
commitment. There was a time when a long
term American commitment was made for national strategic reasons - NATO to keep
Europe strong and healthy and avoid a WWIII; the Principles of 1823 a.k.a. the
Monroe Doctrine to preserve the America’s from European re-colonization. And for often idealistic reasons our
commitments to individual nations, e.g. Israel, South Korea, Australia and New
Zealand.
We
should not Isolate ourselves from the world - our history has proven how
shortsighted and counterproductive such a policy is. Neither should we practice an unbridled
Interventionism that is based on never finding a conflict we didn’t like to insist
we belonged in. When history tells us to
get out we should. We involved ourselves
in Samoa in the 1880's because we needed fueling stations for our merchant
ships. Today we are still there with
half the Samoan islands a US territory - Why?
And while it’s nice to say we are practicing a foreign policy based on
the Idealism that drove this nation’s founding, nevertheless sometime idealism
can be used as a cover for Interventionism driven by the economic selfishness
of those who dominate our society.
We
need a practical foreign policy based on the strengths and weaknesses of our
nation -- on its economy and its ability to maintain military forces that fit
our economic situation. If we end this
great democratic experiment by burying ourselves under mountains of debt
accumulated by the effort to have both guns and butter we will simply show that
it wasn’t democracy that failed. We will
have failed because of democracy’s inability to rein in those who insisted on
guns or those who insisted on butter because those who make the democratic
decisions refused to either chose one over the other or cut back both.
In the
1820's in South America, in the 1840's in Europe, after World War I and again
in the 1990's America became the beacon of hope and democracy to the masses of
people throughout both hemispheres. We
can only be that again if we are true to ourselves and if we make our system
work here at home for all. We can do
that by following a foreign policy which I believe President Obama, except in
the Afghanistan security agreement matter, has followed - a policy of
Pragmatism: -- Stand for our Ideals and
Intervene when and how we can further those Ideals.
2 May
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment