American Foreign Policy Ideology

American foreign policy is characterized by the strong desire to change the way in which other civilizations behave and the want to impose sanctions upon countries that do not conform to U.S. positions.  This sort of behavior is nothing new to American foreign policy and has its roots in the strong Christian tradition of American politics beginning during the massive migrations of immigrants to the country.  This pietist tradition has continued and now exercises its influence on American foreign policy.  For example, Wilson entered WWI to make the world safe democracy and to espouse American westernized ideas, FDR entered WWII on moralist interventionist grounds of which were unjustified, Bush began the War on Terror in order to remove a dictator from power, Obama continues the fight against numerous amorphous groups of extremists who trample rights, and numerous others in between (these are just the big ones that most will recognize).  There are two camps in American foreign policy.  In one corner is the moralist crowd, or interventionist.  And in the other corner we have the realists who are non-interventionist at least most of the time.  Both however, are very dangerous and reflect the problems in the way Americans and their political leaders view foreign policy and the citizens of those nations they seek to attack and/or change to reflect a more western vision.

The moralist is the Wilson and the Bush of foreign policy.  These are the ones that pursue a foreign policy to push values and principles rather than an actual national interest.  The national interest to such an individual is secondary to the main goal which is to engage in empire although crusade is a better term.  The moralist believes that the hegemonic power America possesses must be used to police the world and provide safety, security, and western political and economic institutions to ensure stability.  Of course this stability comes with the implicit agreement that country X who accepts such hospitality will be a proxy for U.S. action and policy in the future.  The policies carried out by the moralist are also paid for by the taxpayers of America whose taxes already do not come close to covering current expenditures much less foreign crusades for glory.  This is where the flaw in the modern approach to foreign policy comes in.  There is no morality in the international arena.  Each entity that engages one another are autonomous political units each a function of their populations and the prevailing opinions and attitudes they hold.  Thus for a country to assume it has the right to proclaim some other nation immoral is absurd.  Only individuals can claim the actions of others immoral and seek to change them through non-violent action.  The numerous people murdered by Saddam Hussein and the political oppression of millions around the world are terrible yet nations have no right to invade the sovereignty of another nation of which has not engaged in an act of force against it, to do so makes the nation invading on moral grounds the aggressor and thus immoral in its action. 

The realist can be just as dangerous as the moralist.  The realist engages in interventionist action if and only if it is to further the national interest.  The goal is not to force upon another society certain values, institutions, or morals but to engage in action when the national interest is at stake.  This notion is obviously utilitarian and lends itself to a slippery slope.  Under such an ideology anything can be considered as furthering the national interest.  How does one judge what is and what is not?  There is no objective criterion but merely the subjective judgments of the adviser or President.  Does policy of nation X or action of nation Y in some way affect this particular interest Z?  No one can be for sure.  Such ideas seem to be at the forefront tin relation to China.  Does the rising role of China in the international arena impede the national interest in Z?  No one can be sure but according to an individual or group of individuals in government it does.  FDR did so during WWII and became involved a war he had no business in and drug a nation unwittingly into a long drawn out war.

The flaw both fall prey to is that they place emphasis on nations rather than the individuals that make up those nations.  Governments believe that to place sanctions upon other nations or use institutions such as the UN, or even to invade forcefully to bring about change or further the national interest affects just that nation.  In fact sanctions fall disproportionately upon the citizens of that nation while their leaders remain well fed, trade sanctions limit their opportunities to better themselves thus impoverishing millions beyond their current level, by bring about change in another nation to reflect western values civilizations are torn apart and shaky, unstable governments are built around corruption and political entrepreneurship rather than real representation of the people.  Such is the nature of government which is my central complaint but here I will stick merely to the interventionist outcomes of state action.  Libertarians believe in natural rights which mean rights such as property, free speech, association, etc may not be infringed.  Yet it is not a power of government to go on a moral crusade to bring about democracy on multiple fronts no matter how much a section of the population may want such an action.  To do so makes the intervener the aggressor and the immoral actor.  The only way in which meaningful change can be realized in situations in which rights are violated is through individual action or the withdrawal of isolationist policies of other nations.  Open borders, free trade, ending of subsidies, discontinuation of foreign aid would all contribute to the stability of the “international community.”  Increases in prosperity and the ability to move to another, freer nation would each undercut the power dictators have over their people and promote peace.  The interventionist framework currently in practice only breeds conflict and results in acts of murder and aggression that has come to be called terrorism.  The conflict we see in our world will continue as governments and their citizens push for more intervention and more intervening in areas of the world they have no say or right to be involved in.  No matter how much you may want something it is not justified to use the mechanism of the state and its coercive power to force change.  It must be organic to ensure long term stability and prosperity.