The average American citizen has little or no interest in foreign affairs. Aside from what they read in the newspaper or see on TV, the comings and goings of other countries and their governments go unnoticed in the lives of most of us. And why not? After all, the federal government handles all of our international relations, as prescribed by the Constitution. Unless America gets attacked (again) or our economy starts to tank, we assume that the government is presenting and protecting America’s interests abroad. We’ve been brought up to believe that as the worlds leader of democracy, other nations will bend to our will and seek to emulate us because we are righteous and pure in our desire to spread freedom.
But what we are told and what really happens are often two different things. A brief look at this nations foreign policy illustrates a constantly changing attitude regarding the proper role of America among the world’s countries. Running the gamut from isolationism to pro-active aggression, American foreign policy has had as many facelifts as an aging beauty queen. In some aspects, this is probably as it should be, especially when comparing the goals of a fledgling country to that of a world superpower. But at the heart of American foreign policy has always been the belief that America’s interests were best reflected and represented by the promotion of personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth.
The trick then becomes how to promote those ideals around the world. America has experimented with many ways to achieve these means, from the Monroe Doctrine and its protectionist attitude towards the western hemisphere to Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of direct intervention as a regional policeman to Wilson’s 14 Points of Light which led eventually to the United Nations. Each of these, and many other policies, sought to impress American ideals onto other cultures for our benefit, without looking at the cost or benefit for the nations we purported to help. In many cases, our might became our right, and once our objectives were achieved, we either picked up and went home or sucked the land and the people dry. In either case, our stated ideals of promoting personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth fell short of the mark and the people took notice.
World War II solidified America’s place in the world order and our foreign policies reflected our newfound status. Having saved the world from the Nazi’s and the Japanese, we figured that the world owed us and it was time to get our due. Sure, we would still advance our concept of freedom in our rhetoric, but from a practical standpoint, it was time for the world to pay up or be put out. Communist expansion allowed for a new common threat to freedom, and in our fight to stem its tide, we began to apply new methods to our foreign policy. Adopting a “containment” theory allowed the U.S. to install military bases around the world, and our “roll-back” actions provided support for any would-be government that opposed the code of communism, regardless of their commitment to the ideals of freedom.
Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have stood up to the Soviet Union and it’s perverted adaptation of a communistic idea. Communism, as it has been practiced, is the exact opposite of our system of government and our core of ideals. But our single-minded goal of stopping Communist expansion blinded us to all other aspects of what a good foreign relations policy should entail. And instead of making real friends in the world community, we ended up creating relationships that were based on the weakest of bonds and the basest of values. We adopted the theory of “the lesser of two evils” and so turned a blind eye to what our “allies” were doing at home while we publicly denounced these same actions by the “enemy.” This hypocrisy was not lost on the citizens of the world and has led us to the point where we are today.
So then how do we go forward from the mess we are in? As the worlds last remaining military superpower, we have the might to force our way on many issues. But this attitude only further increases enmity from the people we would hope to embrace. America is not always looked at as a bringer of hope. To many, we are viewed as a pillager of prosperity and a culture of greed. If we ever hope to increase our security through the promotion of freedom, we have to find ways to advance these ideals through means beyond the bomb. We can’t continue to do one thing while saying the other and we have to recognize that to have good friends, one needs to be a good friend.
To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.
By changing the way we deal with our friends, our foes would have less political ammunition to use against us and their people would see the advantages of being our friend had actual results. And instead of creating temporary alliances for only our benefit, we would forge friendships that improved the lives of our fellow man and increased our own security by reducing the economic disparities that breed resentment.
Our world today is unstable and our military will still play a great role in foreign relations for some time. But military actions should be options of last resort. Diplomacy with a willingness to give, honoring our agreements, and demanding that our allies honor theirs should always get the first crack. But strength has its place too, and my next essay will talk about that. As with any relationship, consistency is the key. I know not every nation has raw materials we need or sits at an advantageous geographical position for us, but in creating world stability, these things should not be the primary litmus test for determining whom we reach out to. Our ideals of personal freedom are not conditional for us; they belong to all people of the world. This is what we believe. This is what we profess. This is what we should offer. The question to ask isn’t “Why should we?” The question is, “Why aren’t we?”
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 27th, 2005 at 10:13 am and is filed under Democracy, Foreign Relations, Government, national security, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 27th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Hello Ken, I don’t comment here often enough because I tend to agree with you and can only offer the occasional “indeed!” or “I concur,” or possibly, “I’ll drink to that.” I appreciate your ideas, though.
Personally, I think that leading by example is a better way to go than forcing “democracy” through massively destructive warfare. Sure peace can be achieved if you kill everyone who disagrees with you, but it’s as if the neocon’s foreign policy was developed by Michael Corleone.
Even liberals like me favor defense and preparedness, for realism’s sake. But “proactive war” against countries who might maybe be a threat, sort of, or might be thinking about it, possibly, or could be dreaming and scheming… it’s neocon madness. America is better off if people around the world see us as a shining example, not as “death from the skies.”
Now, here is where I could be accused of isolationism, but I think of it more as a “tough-love” approach. I think that when the citizens of a country who are under oppressive government become strongly motivated enough to overthrow that government, it is their responsibility to initiate the action. It must be their decision. We can help out (or not) if asked, but unless enough of them them want it, and want it badly enough, it won’t work. I think that’s why the American revolution was so successful. The power has to come from the grassroots.
Of course, I am one of those who believe the neocons are not really trying to “spread democracy,” they are trying to expand their power globally, and are willing to define success in a country as the replacement of an oppressive dictatorship by a puppet regime… but that’s just me
February 28th, 2005 at 6:56 am
Hi Ken,
You wrote a good, thought provoking essay.
I’ll share some of my thoughts on the subject.
In spreading freedom, our government tries to help other nations become self-sufficient on the world stage. Right now it’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The process is long and slow developing over time.
In freeing other countries from dictators and such, we have given their people real hope for a better future in the world. Yes, it is also in our interest to to spread democracy, but not for purely selfish reasons.
The UN was created for facilitating the cause of freedom and preventing genocide, but it has clearly come up far short of accomplishing its designated mission in many areas of the world where people are being slaughtered with no end in sight, as in Rwanda, Sudan and elsewhere even now.
Once we free a nation, it is in our interest to see that it remains so and not fall back to what could result in an even worse situation.
Appeasing regimes that want to do harm to others most always leads to disaster that costs much more to clean up afterward. North Korea is a prime example of our appeasement policy that was used against us by the communist leader Kim Jong IL, and which actually backfired on us, as did Iran in the late 70’s. Notice that both were under a democrat president as was Pearl Harbor.
There is much danger in the world, giving us reason to do what we can to spread freedom, but not to appease radical elements who’s intentions are to take over other nations, government’s or even the world by force or threat.
Are we the world’s cops? Yes indeed we are, and rightly so in my opinion. Who else could do it any better that has any proven track record? Are we perfect? Nope. Progress is the key, not perfection. Nothing comes easy, but don’t bother telling that to a liberal.
Take 9/11 for intance. The terrorists’ were planning it for years before they put it into action because we were not proactive enough and were lulled into a false sense of peace when there was none by an administration too afraid of what others might think of us. Osama bin Laden had declared three times during the 1990’s that they were at war with us, and we sat on our hands hoping it would go away.
Waiting until it’s too late makes zero sense, like trying to be a shining example of a punching bag, but again don’t tell that to a liberal.
The stakes could not be higher than they are now in the Middle East as they were with Russia in the cold war.
If the Europeon’s fail at diplomacy, which is most likely, there will be no other recourse than to use force because the UN has not lived up to its promise even after given the chance so many times, and with the stakes this high it’s too late in the game now to give it another.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:22 am
Hi Ken ,
I’ve been here 20 times now , but fell asleep halfway through the article … what was the question ?
One of the reasons America is sometimes described as being an insular country is the low ownership or passports, and thus the low rate of international travel. Which in some ways is fair enough; in comparison to Europeans, for example, popping over to another country is often a bigger deal than jumping on a train. Some sources suggested that only 7 per cent of Americans own passports and wondered where the figure comes from. It seems the statistic varies.
http://travel.state.gov/passport
used to have stats on this subject , but have removed them .
Google this ..
“only seven percent of Americans own a passport”
work it out for yourself!
March 1st, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Good read Ken, and nice blog. Bravo.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:52 am
Okay, so you’re wrong, not that I just disagree, you’re totally wrong. Each and every country is entitled to it’s own sovereignty. As such, each country is entitled to do what they deem best for their own (and hopefully their people – more on that in a bit) interest. When a conflict arises, diplomacy is the first and usually the best course of action. However, like I said, it takes diplomacy and that involves some give and take.
After WWII, many nations believed (rightly so) that being friends with the US and having US bases in their country was a good thing. For many nations, indeed it was and still is.
Sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work as was the case with Saddam. His actions were in his best interest, his people be damned. Saddam gave every indication that he had WMD’s, all the other nations believed it. Plus he violated item after item from the Gulf War I peace tready. Basically, we had no real choice, as the evidence has shown, we couldn’t wait for the permission of ‘the world’ they were being paid off. He wasn’t going to let inspectors do what they were suppose to (he kicked them out time after time, he would stall on allowing them to look at palaces).
To finish, I care about my country first, the rest of the world second. You know, if I have someone MUCH bigger than I about to kick my ass and all I have to do is turn my pockets inside out – I do it. If the kids standing around the fight circle (the rest of the world) says I shouldn’t harm him, even though he says and we all think he has a knife or gun – I don’t care. If I believe my security to be in danger, I’ll take him out.
I am American first, world citizen second. BTW – which country is most of the world trying to go to (come to)? It’s not costa rica, it’s not France, it’s not Canada, the reason we have some many illegal aliens is because this IS the best country in the world.
Personally, I think you’d be MUCH happier in some other country.
March 2nd, 2005 at 3:30 am
Mr. Anonymous cares about his country first, the rest of the world second. He should try caring about the whole world, period. That way you don’t have to make that choice.
And what’s with the love-it-or-leave-it stuff? What is this, 1965?
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:17 am
(various responses)
Sheanc- I think you grasp what I am trying to imply regarding leading by example. There is nothing wrong with the concept of sharing to create stability and security. It’s just that the money hungry and the idealogues prefer to create situations that benefit themselves at the expense of others and they tend to cloak it in terms of “good and evil.”
Ottman- You make some good points. The spread of freedom is in the best interests of this country. It is also in the best interests of humanity everywhere.
While the UN was founded upon lofty ideals, like so many institutions created by man, it has become corrupted by those who seek to gain power or other tangible rewards rather than serve as stewards of world peace. It is a shame.
As for appeasement, I think you are missing my point. I do not advocate appeasement for the sake of security. Rather, I talk about a more comprehensive system of mutual sharing with the allies that we have…those who don’t want to play along don’t have to. But then we shouldn’t be assisting them in the subjagation of their poeple.
Our role as World Cop isn’t always the right one, even if we are the best equipped from the strength angle. Sometimes the world needs a little chance to work out it’s own issues without being strong-armed by US policy. Sure, we can offer help when it’s asked for, but we shouldn’t always assume that when our help is accepted that it is a sign of approval for our methods.
Finally- European diplomacy may not necessarily be called failure just because it doesn’t have all the US demands attached. Only time will tell if they find a good solution. Sometimes war is the only option, but it must not be used and planned haphazardly.
Dom- the lack of “worldliness” among Americans surely contributes to our perception of superiority. In some cases, it is deserved. Our scientific achievements are one example. But as we become more and more self-important as the rest of the world embraces each other, we become more of a pariah and less of a partner. Not a good thing in the long view…
Tom- thanks. Hope you drop by again.
Anonymous- Perhaps you missed the point. Let me rephrase it in shorter terms…Foreign Relations are best achieved through cooperative means. Period.
I never said that having US bases around the world was a bad thing…FOR US…but rather that our attitudes towards our “allies” could have been better tuned to their needs as well. Those military outposts were primarily for our own benefit, and they served us well. But you have to ask yourself, “Why do so many people in those countries want us to go home? Why have they protested our presence for years?” The answer is not that they don’t value our military support. It is that they tire of our attitude and our superior behavior.
As for the military option, it has it’s time and place, I agree. And in my next post, I will explore that further.
Iraq- this essay, in case you missed it, is not about any single foreign policy issue, but rather a concept in general. But since you mentioned Iraq, here goes: Yes, most people believed Saddam had the weapons. He said it loud and often. Like the playyard bully, someone decided to call his bluff. I am no friend of Saddam, and I have no remorse for taking out his regime. However, this WMD were just the excuse du jour from an administration who was set to tackle Iraq anyhow. Better that they told us their real reasons…better access to resources, removal of a murderous dictator, the possibility of democracy in the Middle East, profiteering from war for their corporate buddies…at least a real choice could have been given to the American people. Since we believe in freedom, we may have still wanted to help the Iraqi’s, but give us the straight story up front. The hindsight that he was more bluster than threat to us would have been less an issue if the original and only reasoning were to begin democracy in the Middle East, a goal that in itself promotes our security. Was war the only way? Perhaps, with Saddam, it finally was. But you don’t go camping without a map and a tent, and you shouldn’t go to war without them either.
Unfortunately, your final comment shows that you have no real concept of the principals of freedom, democracy, or Common Sense. It is because I care about my country that I want it to do better. It is because I care about the world that I want it to be better. It is because I care about my freedom that I tolerate childish remarks like yours.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Ken,
I especially enjoy reading your comment replies. Nice job putting Anon in his/her place.
As to peace and the blobal perspective, when we begin to and sustainably think of the earth as one we will have transformed the jingoists. Unfortunately, their beliefs are steeped in a vile hatred of anything they don’t know or understand (for example, non-christians) and the strong desire to exterminate or coopt those not like them.
it is an angry and violent existence. And rather unfortunate, but not unexpected as they have learned from a long history of Christian bigotry and murder to advance their cause – The Crusades are one example. The Missions (read, virtual annihilation of Native populations) at home and abroad are another example.
March 8th, 2005 at 5:29 am
That would be great if the ultimate aim of american expansion and military conquest was actually for the betterment of the world… its not… maybe at one point it was… but not its simply to expand and maintain american interests and maintain the absurd american standard of living
January 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
[…] my article Foreign Relations Roulette (Feb. 27, […]