Hi, frank - Excellent post. You raise many questions, and I don't pretend to have the answers.
So what follows is, in no sense, a rebuttal to your post. It is not a denial. The study of international relations is fascinating, and often distasteful.
Call it an extension, I guess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The practice of foreign policy often brings into question the issue of what is generally called a nation's "interests".
A nation's pursuit of its interests can be (and often is) at variance with the core beliefs that underlie its creation: that is, the lovely language in its constitution, for example.
For an example of this, look at the history of relations between France and Algeria (another hotbed of terrorism).
Another example would be the joint participation of Israel, Britain and France in the Suez/Sinai conflict of 1956 - a conflict, by the way, in which the United States opposed intervention by colonial powers.
Yet another example would be the cooperative effort between Great Britain and the US in the overthrow of Musaddiq, in Iran, 1953.
Stalin's embrace of Nazi Germany prior to the invasion of Russia was perceived to be in its own best interests. Was it?
In fairness, in the context of recent events, let's look at the pursuit of interests by Middle Eastern countries in recent years. How about Iraq? Ummmm, maybe we better not. Libya? Pakistan? Iran?
I could go on for pages... the pursuit of "interests" has led many a nation astray - and not just the superpower nations, either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The concept of a nation's interests is a slippery one: not least because the question of what those interests are is rarely a constant. The definition of interests may be hotly debated within a nation at the same time as the nation (as opposed to the people) chooses a definition, and acts in support of that definition.
If the people inside a given democratic country cannot agree on what a nation's interests are, how can we expect the people outside the country to be any more certain?
So, it is not necessarily true that a democratic nation will act consistently with democratic precepts when pursuing its interests. Absent a foreign policy consistent through time, interests change. But to posit a foreign policy, consistent through time, is impossible. The pace of events in the modern world outstrips the ability to lay, and maintain a consistent foreign policy.
For example, both Great Britain and the United States have embraced isolationism at different stages in their history: Britain's "Splendid Isolation" of the late 1800's, and America's isolationism prior to WWI. Incidentally, that isolationism was largely in response to critics of the debacles that often resulted from entanglement in foreign affairs.
If no one inside a country can agree on what its interests are, and no one outside can either, who defines a nation's interests? Answer: generally speaking, the government of the moment. That government may, or may not attempt to place its actions in the context of a greater foreign policy, and certain principles.
I'll close this examination of principles and interests with a quick reference to Switzerland. If you think that neutrality confers any exemption from the quagmire of interests, examine the conduct of Switzerland with respect to Nazi gold during, and after WWII. Lofty principles and neutrality are no protection from the traps of international affairs.
So, what have we arrived at?
1 - A nation may have principles that underlay its creation.
2 - All nations have interests, and pursuit of these interests may cause a divergence from the principles underlying that nation's creation, or existence.
3 - A nation's pursuit of its interests is not necessarily a reflection of democratic will. It is not neccesarily correct. It is not necessarily moral.
Throughout history, we see a constant reappearance of inconsistency between a nation's professed principles, and the expressed principles of its foreign policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank, I don't know where that leaves us. I don't pretend that I have offered any answers to your questions.
I believe that many posters on this board have strong feelings, but a poor understanding, and little knowledge of the historical truth of international relations.
Those looking for a nation, any nation that has maintained a steady foreign policy, without error, without moral stain, and consistent with some set of principles, are doomed to disappointment.
That is a foreign policy that has escaped even the Vatican.
So, I view many of the calls for for a more enlightened American foreign policy as exemplary in intent, but uneducated, perhaps, in the realities.
My estimate of American foreign policy is that it has, to a certain extent, been guided by the wishes of its people - perhaps more so than any other superpower. Has it been always correct, moral, and consistent? No.
Is such a requirement realistic, or achievable? Only in this circumstance: where the people elect a government which guarantees a set response, consistent with certain principles, to all international exigencies.
Would I want such a foreign policy? No. Would you? Perhaps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the overview, we should examine foreign policy in the balance.
The exercise I try to promote is to imagine your examination of this subject, a thousand years hence.
Look at the growth of the United States on the world scene. Examine its influence on world events, including its own Civil War. Look at its efforts, both internally, and externally, to offer both American and non-American people a vision: a vision free of oppression, free of racial prejudice, free of want.
Examine its failures; examine its successes. Compare it to Rome, Great Britain, France: whatever former superpower state you like.
I am not suggesting that any particular failure of American foreign policy should be condoned. What I am suggesting is that the view of history will show that the influence of the United States on world events has been, on balance, beneficial.
So far, anyway....
Regards,
Jim |
