US foreign policy: democratic realism and war - Essay Example

US FOREIGN POLICY: DEMOCRATIC REALISM AND WAR Democratic realism is a foreign policy that takes into account polices of realism and democratic globalism. This policy centralizes on that, democracy is a good policy that should be practiced everywhere. However this foreign policy is hesitant to commit blood and treasure in matters of pursuing democracy and accepts war in places where there is strategic necessity or a war waged to an enemy that poses a global threat to freedom of the whole world. Democratic globalism is a foreign policy that has guided the United States foreign policy for this decade. This policy defines the national policy and nation's foreign interest not as power but as values and solely identifies the value of success and liberty. This policy was hatched during the days of John Kennedy and has grown since then to influence most of the United States foreign policy today. The policy has been reckoned to have a vision on the world in which the United States seeks the advance of freedom and the peace that comes with that freedom and it should be beyond the balance of power of the simple pursuit of interest. Proponent of this policy however finds it difficult to sell to other people based on its roots. It is beyond power; more and more people wants power over others. It is beyond interest; the world is driven by interest beyond humanity. Hence this policy is more of a political appeal carrying with it more responsibility of promoting democracy to the whole world and making sure all people in all corners of the world enjoy this peace beyond oppression by regimes. According to Elman (1996), it is deeply in America based on its development history. America is not a nation built on blood, race or other vices, but it is built solely on proposition and democracy. This policy is difficult to be accepted in foreign countries which have not inculcated the value of democracy, freedom and peace into the culture of its people. During the invasion of Iraq, a war led by America on pursuit of democratic globe, the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, found it very difficult to sell the policy to the Britons. It is amazing that most European countries with exception of Britain, finds this policy hopeless and irritating morally. Most of the European countries must find the policy so hard to implement because they have not inculcated this policy in their culture. At the time they were superpowers, European countries concentrated on making a political empire which ha interest of power and exploitation. They scrambled for the world and partitioned it to themselves with Britain taking large parts of the world into its empire. It occupied and partitioned America and they had to be driven out by war. The story reckoned everywhere in other parts of the world. They were forcefully driven out of Africa and Asian countries through blood shed. The globalization policy that is held by European countries is that of exploitation and amassment of power. According to Kagan (2005), this is perhaps one of the reasons why the world misjudged American intention invading Iraq due to the prior experience they had with European countries. It was seen as another scramble for colonization. During the Second World War, American entered into the war to help its former colony Britain and with little interest in assuming the world superpower position. However as the war progressed, America was exposed to what was happening in the world and immediately after the war, American leaders saw the need to change the world and make it more democratic. But unfortunately it was misunderstood right from the start of its campaigning for a free world. According to Ted (2002), America entered the war with an aim of bringing social construction on international politics as expressed by Moscow. But the American policy of democratic globalism is based on inspiration that comes from the Truman Doctrine of 1947, the Kennedy inaugural speech of 1961 and 1983s Reagan's speech of 'evil empire'. One common idea about all these speech was that they represented the world as a struggle between two political ideologies based on two geographies. This was during the era of world wars and hence the speeches all concentrated on restoration of peace in the world. They represented a struggle between freedom and un-freedom for the whole world. They were based on struggle between capitalist and communism. Reagan was accused of ideologizing the cold war by bring a moral view into the war. It is to be understood that during this struggle America was committed to freeing the world from the oppression regimes of communism leaders. Reagan did not ideologize the cold war but the cold war itself was not a political war but rather an ideological war. Without the cold war, the world would have erupted into another world war which could have had more devastating results than the Second World War. With the end of the cold war in 1991, America ideology on a free world without oppression took root. However the struggle has been longer that earlier thought and in this century, post September 11 attack, the ideological war has resurfaced again. The war today is not against soviet communism but it is wage on Arab-Islamic totalitarianism which takes religious and secular sphere. It is turning to be war against religion and governance and not against terrorism. The September 11 attack caught Americans by surprise and immediately they started doubting their ability to defend their precious country. Immediately, President Bush sought the approval of the Congress to invade Afghanistan to drive Al Queada terrorists from the country where they had built their base. To do this America had to seek support from its allies all who felt threatened by the terrorist attacks. There were outcries from the religious quarters of the world to opt for peaceful measure of settling the scores other than military invasion. There was also an in-fight in the congress about the approval of the war but the congress including the republican and the Democrats all voted for the war. This was a display of one policy that many people hold up to date: the policy of Isolitarian. Isolitarians are cowards who would go to use any possible means to defend their country. It is a good policy since it show the desire and the love to defend once country. Isolitarians sees their country as isolated and not equal to other countries. This was the policy pursued by America before the Second World War where leaders had isolated it from playing a big role in the world politics. With the approval of the war, America immediately sought help from Britain and other allies including Japan and it invaded Afghanistan crumbling the Tora Bora Mountains. At home British Prime Minister Tony Blair had difficult time selling the policy of making the world a secure and free. Blair expressed utopian policy when he addressed the congress that "The spread of freedom is our last last line of defense and our first line of attack." This showed the same utopian policy expressed by President Woodrow Wilson when he expressed that democracy could only be achieved through international institutions. It can be said that, that was then. The institutions are there and what are they doing Haven't they turned to be objects of manipulation by world powers dancing to the tune of their songs Woodrow never knew how corrupt and inefficient these institutions could turn to given what they are today, 9 decades later. Democratic globalism is an improvement over realism. It improves the realism perception that democracy is not just an end but it is a means of securing interest. It has turned out to be that way. Although the original proponents of the ideas may have seen it other way, world democracies are inclined more to the United States than their neighbors and non-democratic nations cannot eat at the same table with Americans. Cuba and Venezuela have been victims of isolation by America even with their efficient communism. The policy of realism is always right showing that you cannot secure your interest if you are fighting for the same interest with another person. America has learned the realist way after it was displaced from the mineral rich Sudan by China. To secure your interest realism dictates that you have to silence the other guys. But how far can you silence others when they know that you are reaping from their silence America has just learned that. China has not been silent when America reaped from Sudan. Then something has to be planted somewhere to check the other guys, and which must be democracy. This explains the reason why American has seemingly withdrawn from Sudan affairs, because there is no democracy in China. Democratic globalism faces the dangers of universalism, human freedom the issue of planting democracy in any nation. Sometimes there is a resistance to the policy and the results are devastating. It has resisted in Congo, Burma, Pakistan, and others and has been accused of hypocrisy. Then which criteria do we use to articulate for democratic globalism There is one foreign policy that shows us where we can intervene in the democratic process to bring democracy and stimulate nation building. This is democratic realism. As we said earlier, the policy seeks to "support democracy everywhere, but will commit blood and treasure only in peace where there is a strategic necessity - meaning, places central to the war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom." This gives us the justification of democratic critics who are against the war in Iraq. It was good that the republicans found the issue of presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as convincing enough to overthrow Sadam Hussein. Was the process justified Was there a need to lose thousands of American soldiers in the Iraq war The argument can go on and on but the fact remains that since September 11 attack, even American citizens, same as the government felt threatened by the presence of Sadam in power and the purported Al Qaeda links he had. Blood and treasure had been committed in a war that many thought it was unnecessary. It leaves all Americans, proponent and opponents of war wondering what could have happened to America has it not intervened in the wars. It is good to learn that unlike the attacks of 1950s on Japan and Germany which were purely struggles for power, the attack on Arab-Islamic radicals is against an uprising due to political oppression, religious intolerance and social injustice system. According to Elit (2001), it is a fight against a strong rooted religious and social hatred against Americans. It is not a war against one man who you can capture or destroy. It is a war that requires more that physical war to win. It is a war that needs consulted efforts of driving an oppressive regime out of power and consequently installs democracy. Democratic realism is the best policy to wage a war against Arab-Islamic radicals. This is a real alternative to the republican policy of democratic globalism. Democratic globalism is deficient in its own way since it does not provide for criteria through which democracy can to be set up. That is why the war is still being fought in Iraq and democracy has not been created in the country. It is good to notice that September 11 was the beginning of the challenge to America as a superpower. More issues are surfacing which require more tactical policy to be used than democratic globalism. Today there is the rise of china and the demographic collapse of Europe. This signs a destabilized international system once again. It is true that the rise of America as a unipolar state after the collapse of Soviet Union is being challenge now more that it has ever. The policy of democratic realism dictates that America call for collective security of the world and maintenance of balance of power, considering itself as first among equals in creating a just world, among other things. The democrats have championed for democratic realism as the best foreign policy for the United States through consultation, unlike the republican who seems to use the Allison's conceptual model of making decision which sees state decision as being made of confusion and agreement among the officials and not made on solution. The invasion of Iraq was could not really have being a solution to fighting terrorism in the world but was rather based on agreement. During the Clintons administration, the Democrats embraced some policies like support of open market. It has also shown the real democratic realism face of international crisis by intervening in the crises in Somalia and Balkans. Democratic realism embraces the policies of globalization but which promotes fair distribution of resources. Democrats support the involvement of United States in international affairs but responsibly. The American people have overwhelmingly supported the involvement of the United States in the international affairs against the policies of isolationism. According to Steinberg, (2007), in 2009 America may have a more responsible democrat government which does not appear to have the drive to pursue international wars but use more realistic ways in line with globalization to bring peace to the world. We might have a government that will engage South East Asia into negotiation and which will share neo-wilsonian values to promote democracy. We will have a government that will be more committed to climate change in the world and more responsive to international laws. References: Ellitt, A. (2001). The influence of Faith: Religious Groups and US Foreign Policy. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Ellman, C. (1996). Horses for Courses: Why not Neo-Realist Theories of Foreign Policy Security Studies 6: 58-61 Kagan, R. (2005). Between Wisdom and Foolishness; Journal of the society for historian of American foreign relations; Vol. 29(3): 415-517 Marshall, W. (2000): Democratic Realism: the Third Way. Blue Print Magazine, January 2000. Steinberg, J. B. (2005). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policy in 2009 - Challenges, Opportunities and their Implications for Southeast Asia; ASEAN-US symposium, Singapore; Retrieved from, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/news/fall2007/steinberg_singapore.php on 11th December 2007 Ted, H. (2002). Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies. Cornell University Press Read More