Archives

October 2007: What American values should be reflected in our foreign policy?

The words conservative and liberal have meant different things at different times in history.

We have discussed liberalism and conservativism mostly in domestic terms. What about foreign policy? Are there legitimate differences in values that conservatives and liberals bring to foreign policy? Once upon a time, people talked (naively perhaps) about non-partisan foreign policy. Vietnam perhaps changed that. Globalization changed that. But can we connect those liberal and conservative ideas on foreign policy to liberal and conservative philosophies about the role of government? Or should there be an alternative, non-partisan approach?

Conservative Response

You might say that since Vietnam there has been a conservative foreign policy and a liberal one. Liberals would support leftist causes abroad; conservatives would counter those, often seeing liberals giving a boost to our Cold War adversaries. Conservatives were willing to make those cold, hard choices in the wider war: we supported some unsavory characters — leaders of other countries who were anything but democratic — because they joined us against the USSR and/or China. Why? Because it was best for our own national interest.

That leads me to the difference between the two sides today. Conservatives ought to be making those cold, hard choices in the war on terror that will lead to victory and a better world. It worked in the Cold War; it will work today IF we will it so.

Liberals understandably look for ways to alleviate the poverty that exists in the new global economic system. So do conservatives. Liberals look for some kind of way to weaken the role of corporations in less developed countries, and count on international oversight to 'seek justice' for the world's poor. Conservatives should look to our self-interest, which is a prosperous global network — one where business, ideas, and people are free to flow. The little known fact is that corporate investment is the one thing that is propelling poorer peoples forward. There is no magic way of making the poor and ignorant rich and educated. Only by slowly incorporating them into the world of business does this hold promise for the next generation.

We also look at the international organizations and worry that their corruption is NOT what we should be modeling. If you look at where the worst poverty is, you see international aid pilfered by corrupt, undemocratic regimes. Where you see the rising tide of prosperity you see transparent governments plugging into the global economy. When that happens it is good for them and it is good for us.

Conservatives are for self-interest. Unfortunately some conservatives don't see that the welfare of others is in our self-interest, and we should promote it using conservative principles of democracy and free markets, everywhere.

— Editor

Liberal Response

There is and should be a liberal foreign policy. It is a direct extension of our liberal American values.

Liberalism was all about providing opportunity for the common people, protecting them from the abuses of the moneyed classes. Rights for workers, against companies that would work them to death; rights for minorities, against companies that would not hire them at all; rights for women, against companies that would not promote them; rights for citizens, against the wealthy who would control the government, the police, the security apparatus, and the lawmakers themselves.

Now we need that liberalism in our foreign affairs. When Walmart pays foreign workers next to nothing; when companies use Mexico's borderlands as toxic dumping grounds; when companies dictate to sovereign nations what rules they can make and enforce — it is time that the international community places limits. We want business to come to poor countries and enrich them. We just do not want to give them free reign at the expense of people who live in sewer pipes and have no voice.

We also believe that this enrichment requires peace.

In the Cold War days, people understood the inevitability of two powers pushing others around in the life-or-death struggle for the world. But it is different now. The centers of power are many and fluid. Even the bad guys are tough to nail down. [Where IS that Osama anyway?] We no longer have the ability to face off with 'evil' by ourselves and win. We NEED the other forces for good in the civilized world. We can't just abuse people to get what we want and expect them to accept it. The war against terror, the war against poverty, the war against corruption, the war against intolerance — all of these require collaboration.

The way to lead in the world community is to join it.

— Editor

Alternative Response

They don't like us.

People around the world don't like us when we act (Iraq), and when we don't (Rwanda). They don't like our giving habits (too little) and our spending habits (too decadent). They don't like our politics (too militaristic) and our culture (too materialistic). We are so big and so rich we are targets.

We are not the world's policemen, nor are we its saviors, nor are we the Great Satan. The answer is not to play that game.

The Libertarian view is that we need to get our government out of other people's affairs. We have no business playing like we trust the UN — we don't. We have no business preaching to others how their countries should be run. The only thing we have business doing is conducting business. Let us make money and work with other people to make money, and be good guests in other countries by accepting their ways and not shooting them.

We should be treated by others as we treat them, so we should treat them well. When they are in our country, they then should be good guests here.

In an age where there are hundreds of grass roots groups and NGOs doing charity work, and working for change around the world, inserting the CIA and USAID into it all just mucks up the process. To help these folks do what we do well, we should do what we do well — invest, profit, interact, promote ourselves, and be tolerant of a diverse world.

Freedom should not just be an American dictate.

— Editor

Elliot S.
Madison, WI
1/16/08

Long ago Mark Twain wrote an article entitled "Ten Thousand Killed a Million", about the occupation and slaughter of an indigenous people in the Philippines by the US military during the Spanish American War. The murder, debauchery and wars, seemingly without end, continued on and off for the intervening 107 years or so. A most decorated Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marine Corps wrote in "War is a Racket" of his ugly escapades in Central America and Haiti for US big business. The values of our Constitution, our social, political and cultural freedoms and our achievements mean nothing if our actions do not reflect the core values we espouse here at home and fulfill less often overseas. For years we have interfered in the affairs of our 'enemies', or label the latest victim the axis of evil. For years we have acted with impunity in destabilizing governments not acceptable to our government. All too often we have ended up bullying others into our desired world mold, whether it's Privatization, WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA.... or outright invasion.

The notion that this style of diplomacy may be loosing us real friends around the world, seems not to have registered broadly in American society, politics, or foreign policy. We can no longer act with impunity; the world has changed, we have much to offer but we can no longer demand much. We are no longer in the midst of the Radio and TV era. We have reached the decade of the Internet. Secrets don't work as well anymore and there is no going back. As naive as it may sound, if we express the values of "Mom, Apple Pie, Truth and the American Revolutionary Spirit" that way, we will do the best for this country in its foreign policy future.

One of our strengths lies in our socio-cultural diversity. But our diversity is also our weakness when our fear of foreigners or new world players clouds our domestic and foreign policy as the destructive force which it can be. Our war with a part of the Islamic world has been rightly criticized for its brutality toward enemy non-combatants and violence against innocent civilians. Our nation's failure to deal honestly with the legal, ethical, and political nightmares we created at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan, rendition, and the mistreatment and torture of detainees guarantees that the terrorists will determine our future.

After 9-11 the entire world was with us; it was just the matter of the details, but that golden nugget was squandered for the same old unilateral foreign policy belligerence which has, more often than not been the norm since our initial fight with the Muslim world during the war with the Moors from before 1800 to around 1815. A recent movie, Charlie Wilson's War, taken from the book of the same name by the late George Crile, is emblematic of the attitude which sets up the nation to blowback of the worst sort. It was not a humorous event as the movie might leave you to believe, but the story of a democratic congressman who with the help of the Democratic party leadership was able to provide material support and eventually Stinger ground-to-air missiles to the Mujahedin resistance fighters in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets in the 1980's. Some of those same Mujahedin became Afghan Taliban and some of the Arab anti-Soviet fighters became al-Qaeda supporters and members, turning on the U.S. when they saw a new enemy, and depositing 9-11 in our lap, a foreign policy nightmare we may never recover from. One can only imagine what would have happened had we helped the Afghans after the Soviets retreated, to build civil society and infrastructure, a failure even Congressman Charlie recognized as a grand failure on our part in post Soviet war Afghanistan.

NB
1/16/08

As Americans, we talk a lot about our core values and how these values drive our daily life and are reflected in our society and our foreign policy. From our economic support for Europe after WWII to disaster relief for Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, America has been and continues to be a beacon of hope for people around the world. Unfortunately, we don't always live up to our own ideals. Our history is littered with examples of our willingness to bend or outright disregard our own values. A recent example is our policy on enhanced interrogation techniques. Our current president says America does not torture yet we continue to learn more about the unethical and immoral practices of the Bush administration and our intelligence community.

Even with this mixed history, we continue to cling to the idea that the United States defines those values that everyone (here and abroad) should live by. However, I believe we can learn a lot from other counties and cultures. We should be willing to adapt and promote, through diplomatic and economic policies, values that truly reflect our very best human traits. Below is a short list of core values that should be reflected in American foreign policy:

• Personal Freedom - Promote freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, political freedom and voting rights, the right to work, reproductive rights, academic freedom, etc.
• Equality - Promote equality under the law, equality in society, equality regardless of color, religion, gender, economic and social status, education, orientation, health, age, etc.
• Democracy - Support governments of the people, by the people and for the people.
• Peace - Promote diplomacy and quickly address conflict.
• Humanity - Provide immediate and long term aide to those impacted by natural, man-made and economic disasters, including those displaced and suffering from conflict and war.
• Health - Strive for a healthier world by addressing environmental concerns (global warming, pollution, deforestation and habitat loss) and social concerns (poverty, famine, HIV and other epidemics).
• Security - Fight terrorism, despotism and imperialism through diplomatic, economic and, in extremely rare instances, military means.
• Encourage Progress and Achievement - promote progress in technology, medicine, economic and social development, etc.

Obviously, this is not a complete list and it does not address conflict with national security - though I believe if we live by these values, we will not only improve our image around the world, we will improve significantly our national security.