American Foreign Policy

We are going to be talking about different perspectives on foreign policy, so today I want to create a broader context in which we can examine the two specific arguments we’ll be reading.

1.   Traditional view (neo-realism/liberalism): argues that the end of the cold war has not dramatically changed American interests and goals in that: a) the goal is still to protect American economic interests and the physical security of the US and its allies; b) the US remains a world power with the responsibility of trying to lead a western alliance that now stands hegemonic; and c) economic trade and prosperity must be protected through a free trade regime, a willingness to use force against those who would undermine the system; and enhancement of international stability.  This requires:

* an ability to fight at least two small scale wars at one time, recently revised to allow for multiple crisis points;

* a willingness for the use of American troops in various parts of the world in peace keeping or potentially peace-making operations;

* increased involvement of the intelligence community to combat terrorism and other non-traditional threats

* perhaps the development of an anti-missile defense against medium range missiles;

* arms reduction agreements with traditional powers (Russia, etc.)

* active diplomacy in trouble spots (Mid-east, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia China/Taiwan, etc.) to prevent the rise of instability in the system.

Within the traditional view there are variations, but a general agreement on policy goals and themes; the disagreements are more about the means rather than the ends of policy (e.g., one can have a traditionalist view but oppose involvement in Kosovo or Iraq; traditionalists differ on trade relations with China or on the proper response to the Pakistani-Indian problem).  

Some comments about this view:

·        It is a mix of very different theoretical perspectives, merging realism and liberalism which, in academia, often are seen as incommensurable.  However, politicians are not mandated to go by one theory, their perspectives mix and mesh often depending on the issue; theories are only to help us understand.  Also, both liberalism and realism have enough interpretive leeway to allow the mesh to “work.”

·        Many traditionalists are quite critical of the Bush administration in its first term approach, with diplomats quitting in protest, and anger behind the scenes, among Republicans as much as Democrats.  The second term Bush administration seems at the start to be moving more towards the traditionalist approach, perhaps dissuaded from a more aggressive style by the costs borne in Iraq.  Time will tell.

·        Even traditionalists are starting to realize that the world is changing and US policy may have to change; they are the most likely to hold on to Cold War ideals on American foreign policy.

2.  Neo-Isolationism

Neo-isolationists argue that the United States should focus primarily on national interests and security concerns, and should cease playing a global role.  Neo-isolationists differ in motivation.  Some believe the Cold War was justified and required a massive US military arms buildup.  However, that is over now, and the US can scale back its commitments, recognizing that communism is no longer a threat.  Others believe that communism was never as a much a threat as people made it out to be, and that US policy in general has been over-committed and puts the citizens at unnecessary risk.   Neo-isolationists are very critical of US involvement in small scale operations like Somalia and Haiti, but are especially skeptical of the wars in Iraq and Kosovo, arguing that the US is needlessly putting its prestige, interests and even economic and political strength on the line for dubious grounds.  They believe that terrorism is in part a response to the use of American power world wide, and that by trying to fight it, we only make it stronger.  They often have a moralistic strain in their approach, much like Thomas Reed back a century ago.

Some neo-isolationists want to cut military spending and scale down US involvement.  Others want to maintain or even increase spending in order to stay powerful, but to at the same time avoid involvement in other people’s conflicts.  All want to avoid attempts to create or institute a world order, and question the rationale for US commitments.  Some libertarian oriented isolationists argue that America’s imperialist foreign policy enhances a lack of liberty at home (and may tie in things like Waco, the Padilla and Hamdi cases concerning terrorism, or the Patriot Act in general) to militarism or the US military/industrial complex.

The neo-isolationist view is often associated with the Right (Pat Buchanan), but spreads across the spectrum, including traditional realists (sometimes Kennan even sounds these kinds of themes), anti-militarists (usually on the left, but include Johnson who isn’t really left or right) who decry American intervention in support of dictators or the human cost of wars, and domestic concerns that there are problems here we should be using resources to solve.

Trade: Another split in the neo-isolationist view is trade.  Some isolationists want completely free trade (especially the libertarian branch), while others want protectionism against countries that violate human rights or potentially threaten American jobs.

Note on neo-isolationism:

            * Neo-isolationists often detest the term because they don’t want to disengage from the world, many in fact want expanded trade and welcome globalization.  They often claim they are anti-interventionist.

            * The example of WWII is shoved in their faces as a reason why “isolationism doesn’t work.”  That is too simplistic a reply, and doesn’t address their style of isolationism in most cases.

            *  Since the form of neo-isolationism, from capitalist libertarian, leftist, to conservative Buchanian varies, it’s hard to put this in one large group.

3.  The Radical World View

Radicals argue that the US has not been trying to simply promote freedom and sovereignty, but rather has been attempting to expand corporate capitalism.  Ideologies vary.  During the Vietnam war and at times in the Cold War, a Marxist left put forth the ideas most dramatically.  The Marxists weren’t usually pro-Soviet (for the most part -- some were, which led to a lot of weird defenses of Soviet policy which was often worse than how they perceived American policy), but they did have an argument that warrants attention;

* The US policy making elite and political elite are closely tied to business and international banking.  These bankers and business people “run the show” behind the scenes through their ability to influence decision makers and set the agenda globally.

* Current watchwords -- free trade, interdependence, globalization, post-sovereignty -- fit the desires of these folk.  They aren’t loyal to the state, but to the profit motive.

* The US hegemony has been an attempt to expand banking and finance, as well as opening up the third world (and second world) to capitalist/corporate control.  Wars and interventions are often based on business interests: cheap oil, United Fruit Company, ITT, etc.  (Johnson’s book goes into these somewhat)

 * US policy works against democracy and freedom in the third world by supporting authoritarian dictators who are often worse (or at least as bad as the Communist dictators we were opposing).

Much of this can lead to interesting debates about Cold War policy, but the bottom line is what radical thinkers say about current policy dilemmas.  Namely, they argue that right now the US is using its muscle and hegemony to try to promote the interests of global capital (either intentionally or, like elite media theory, unintentionally as part of the system.)  Remember dependency theory from IR?  Similar.  The goal for them now is democratize economic and political life finance above human living conditions.

Note about radical theorists:

·        These theories are much more popular in Europe than the US, and help explain the different perspectives between the two sides of the Atlantic;

·        They are less inclined to see terrorism as the kind of threat it is claimed to be, and instead see it being used as an excuse for big money and big government to expand their collaboration;

·        They very much focus on money and economics as the motive, and look at inside deals and the individuals in government

4.  World Order Perspectives

These include ideas of some kind of alternative policy, not just the Bush-Clinton “New World Order” ideas.  These often have alternative notions, defined by such things as the peace movement or the hope for a world federation.  Here a few points:

* the US should operate by the rules, and not use its superpower status in order to put itself above others; instead, US power and wealth should be used to create a world order based on peace, cooperation, and human rights.

* multilateralism should replace unilateralism as a policy logic

* human rights should replace national interest as a primary value

* institution building between states is the primary task to assure a peaceful world order

Note about World Order Perspectives:

·        Not opposed to the traditionalists completely, but tend to be more adamant that the US adhere to and try to build strong international law and international institutions by playing by the same rules others play by, and not flexing its muscle;

·        Emphasize human rights as a primary value, and are more prone to support humanitarian interventions rather than “self-interested” interventions;

·        Are critical of the value of military power, believing it is not as relevant as thought in the past;

·        See globalization as a challenge: how do we provide the order necessarily to make it work well, and not lead to conflict, terrorism and the like.

5.  Neo-Conservative

This is a kind of liberal militarism, which argues for the spread of democracy and markets, but not via international institutions and “by example” alone, but also through the use of military power where necessary.  They argue the US should not be afraid to use its awesome power to shape the next century; if we are timid, that will give opponents or ‘enemies of freedom’ the opportunity to grow and become capable to bring about real problems.

Notes about Neo-conservatives:

·        They usually entertain the most pessimistic scenarios about future terrorism or the acts of rouge states, believing that there are extremely real and even probable threats to US security;

·        They often are very close to Israel; some neo-conservatives complain that the label itself is anti-Semitic.

·        They see the Mideast as the lynchpin for the future system, arguing that if in the region of massive oil and turmoil democracy and markets can take root, and solve long standing problems, this could alter the nature of world politics, and start a true democratization for the next century;

·        Neo-conservatives often mix their Wilsonian rhetoric with a Hobbesian world view about politics, engaging in a more pure power politics approach.  This creates a disconnect for some between their vision of spreading democracy, and their unwillingness to build international law and institutions. 

What assumptions do you make about international politics and foreign policy?  As you can guess, assumptions about the nature of the international system (anarchy, interdependence, a capitalist world system, etc.) makes a difference on how you assess the system. 

Issues to consider:

What priorities do you see for foreign policy?  What are the major issues important for the United States?

What are the INTERESTS of the United States?  Where do these interests come from?  Do you think interests come more from culture and society, or are they natural and objective?

What are the PROPER MEANS for pursuing those interests?  Are there ethical limitations on policy, does interdependence or the nature of the system have an impact on what the US can or should do.

How powerful is the US, and how well can it project that power?  Optimism on US power is more common for internationalists, while isolationists tend to be more skeptical.