Interest of the United States of America - Essay Example

Running Head: interest f the United s f America ''With regards to the national interest of the United s of America, notions of power, prosperity, principle and peace can never be truly reconciled.'' [Name of the writer] [Name of the institution] Interest of the United States of America The debate between the realist and idealist schools f international relations is definitely not a unique one to American politics in relation to foreign policy, however this divide has often been most clearly illustrated in the running f American foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are often viewed as the most striking examples f idealism in foreign policy, they have seen America's role as a moral crusader fighting for the classically American ideals f democracy, free-markets and human rights. Whereas Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger are usually remembered as having viewed foreign policy primarily as a tool for the use in the pursuit f power and national interests. Realism in its most concentrated form argues that the head f state should solely be interested in achieving things which will further national interests, with complete disregard for things like human rights if they don't directly contribute to this achievement. A common explanation for the realist way f thinking is concisely put when it is stated that, 'leaders must deal with the world the way it is, not as they would wish it to be. The key assumptions f realism say that; states are the main components f the international system and that these states are motivated and ought to be motivated by their own interests and the search for power. It is also assumed that; the balance f power is imperative to international stability and that relations between states should be trying to obtain this international balance f power, not to change other states policies. (Ikenberry 2006) During the presidential debate f 11th f October 2000, when George W. Bush was asked to speak about what the guiding principle for his foreign policy would be, he took a classic realist line: "The first question is what's in the best interest f the United States What's in the best interest f our people When it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation's interests" A true realist will oppose giving 'moral' concerns priority over foreign policy objectives. They object to what is often seen by other states as unwanted 'medalling' in idealist approaches to foreign policy, as there are both practical and political difficulties when intervening in the domestic affairs f other states. Interference in the internal affairs f another state is seen as an infringement f its sovereignty. This sort f behaviour would only make the USA unpopular in the wider world and this does not serve American interests, in fact it would obstruct its ability to pursue them. In realist terms humanitarianism is an often-unaffordable luxury, as is the ability to only align themselves with states f common moral and political beliefs. However the practice f power politics cannot often oblige. The USA has in the past been willing to support extreme right-wing regimes, even when they are known to be violators f human rights, so long as the regime was pro-America, or at least anti- communist, (the 'lesser f two evils' strategy). It can be summarised in one sentence; the world must be taken as it is found and statesmen should stay faithful to moral principles where possible but must always be willing to bend these principles when necessary to protect the interests f the state. Modern day realism tends to reject the multilateral approach to action, as favoured by the Clinton administration. It is unclear, however, if this change in favour f American unilateralism will be a lasting one. (Mead 2007) Pure idealism argues that one should take the moral route under all circumstances, regardless f the effect it has on the states national interests. Idealism is motivated by the key assumptions that; the state is only one f the important actors in the international system. Values should and do shape the states instead f self-interests. Military distribution f power is no more important in keeping order than social and economic issues. It is general international conditions, which dictate the considerations f a state not their own self-interests. The idealists approach is one that is more 'naturally' adopted by the American belief system in that it consists f instincts and values to which most Americans would hold in high regard, saying this realism always has a place in the American mind-set. It is important to note the idealism is a broad term that can encompass many relatively varied viewpoints; idealism has both right and left wing variations. In the presidential debate f 2000 the opponent f the republican candidate, Bush, was Al Gore. He explained the objectives f his proposed foreign policy in much wider terms adopting a clearly idealist approach to international relations; "I see our greatest... national strength coming from what we stand for in the world. I see it as a question f values. It is a great tribute to our founders that 224 years later, this nation is now looked to by the peoples on every other continent, and the peoples from every part f this earth as a kind f model for what their future could be." Idealists in America are generally all in favour f giving moral considerations priority over those f self-interest when it comes to foreign policy. Doing what is morally right does not always mean the sacrifice f the national interests f America, in fact often these actions are also in the national interest and so there is often no need to prioritise one over the other as they can be beneficial both morally and in the interest f America. This concept was often adopted as part f Clinton's way f thinking. Idealists maintain that political reality can coexist with moral realities and that human behaviour can be shaped by social instructions, they defend the point that creating a moral and just global society does not automatically mean an obstruction to America's power or self interests. Most American citizens desire policies that extend American values globally, many would agree that the US government should discontinue relations with states that openly disregard these moral values and that these states should alter their behaviour if they wish to continue doing business with the USA. In short, idealism is probably more instinctively desirable to the Americans in general, because it is an approach, which, aspires to extend those things favoured by Americans domestically past the boundaries f boarders and shorelines. Carter, one f the best-remembered idealist presidents said in his inaugural address; "Because we are free, we can never be indifferent to the fate f freedom everywhere." This illustrates the idealist's fundamental desire to achieve for other people f the world the human rights, which play such an integral role in American society and way f life. Another defence in the realist/ idealist debate concerns America's status as the worlds most prominent economic and political power. A belief that historically America has an obligation to improve the moral fibre f the rest f the world has always had an influence, to some extent, on its foreign policy. Even if America does not have the scope to lead as an individual through playing a lead role in a multilateral institution, it can continue to strive for these objectives. No where else in the world has more examples f international relations with America than the Middle East in the present day. The shape f modern day foreign policy in America was drastically changed by the events f 9/11, which brought the first shocking terrorist attack ever seen on American soil. With Bush in office, a realist from day one, actions were taken to safeguard the American people from another such atrocity. One f these major steps was to find the instigator f the attack, Osama bin laden. American intelligence revealed information which indicated that bin laden was in Pakistan, however Pakistani intelligence coupled with that f the CIA then believed that bin laden was hiding in a mountainous region f Afghanistan and that he was being aided by the Taliban, the group in power in at the time. For both revenge and preventative measures, the Taliban were actively pursued with a view to the capture f bin laden him self. With the disruption f the Taliban regime the door was opened for other groups hungry for power to fill the void. Again the 'lesser f two evils' strategy comes in to play. (Zakaria 1998) News reports explain how the short sightedness f the realist approach to foreign policy in this instance, has badly affected a country that under the correct management could have been free from such tyranny, which now only seemed to be getting worse; "Human rights abuses in Afghanistan are being committed by gunmen and warlords who were propelled into power by the United States and its coalition partners after the Taliban fell in 2001," said Brad Adams, executive director f the Asia Division f Human Rights Watch. "These men and others have essentially hijacked the country outside f Kabul. With less than a year to go before national elections, Afghanistan's human rights situation appears to be worsening." The quest for justice took far too narrow a view f the situation being created by such conflict, that Human Rights Watch called on the United States, the United Kingdom, Iran, Russia and other external powers to end their support for local strongmen and commanders involved in human rights abuses. Direct action needed to be taken and Bush didn't hesitate, however, the total realism f his political outlook left the place f conflict, Afghanistan in complete turmoil. (Bagby 1999) Another Middle Eastern example f the effects f American foreign policy is that f Israel. But in this instance, in contrast to Afghanistan, the Israelis are close allies f the Americans. The foundation f the Jewish state was a direct effect f the ending f the Second World War. The conflict arises between the Israelis and Palestinians at the expansion f the state f Israel with the massive influx f Jewish refugees. The American support f Israel is on one level a result f the idealist concepts f foreign policy, that every group f people have the right to a homeland. But many sceptics may say that it has more to do with the fact that a large percentage f the American population are Jewish. This must be taken into account as the power f lobbying in the USA is never to be underestimated, especially when the Jewish population in America have vast financial backing to offer political campaigns. (Hasted 1997) On 2004-04-13 an article was published; "President George Bush will give Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a written guarantee that Washington would never press its close alley to withdrawal from the entire occupied Palestinian West Bank under any peace settlement, according to reports Sunday, April 11". This also protects the Israelis from any repercussions f any actions, military or other wise, that they deem to be 'anti-terror' operations. "Israel and Washington usually describe Israeli extra judicial executions f Palestinian resistance leaders and activists as acts f self defence and part f a war on terror." This seems to be far from the moral objectives f true idealism. Foreign policy by definition is the interaction between states but to protect its self-interests. With this in mind it is hard to believe that any governing body would have a purely moral agenda in a world full f external threats. I believe that the two schools f international relations are very hard to completely separate in practice as the two approaches often have their own role in any one situation where America is acting in another state. The action in Afghanistan had a moral element at its core, to overthrow a terrible regime, which denied many f their human rights. But the end result left the Afghans in another terrible situation but because f American interests there was no attempts at building a democracy, this shows all the hallmarks f the realist approach. This example is from a time where a hard-line realist is in office yet there are moral elements in the cause f action. It just shows how over the course f the relatively young country's political development, the two separate theories f international relations have become inseparable. References Jentleson, B. American Foreign Policy: The dynamics f choice in the 21st century. Bagby. Wesley M., America's international relations since world war 1,Oxford university press,1999. Buzan, Barry. The United States and the great powers, London: polity, 2004. Hasted, Glen, American foreign policy: past, present and the future, London: prentice hall, 1997. Ikenberry, John. American foreign policy: theoretical essays,3rd ed., New York: Longman 1999. Iriye, Akira, The Cambridge History f American foreign relations,vol.3,Cambridge: Cambridge University press,1993 Ikenberry, John, liberal order and imperial ambitions, London.polity,2006. Zakaria, Fareed, From wealth to power: the unusual origins f America's world role, Chichester: Princeton university press, 1998. Nye, Joseph, Bound to lead: The changing Nature f American power, New York: Basic books, 1990. Melanson, Richard, American foreign policy since the Vietnam War, New York: M.E Sharpe, 2005. Mead, Walter Russell. The American Way f Strategy: U.S. Foreign Policy and the American Way f Life. Foreign Affairs, 2007, Vol. 86 Issue 2, p169-170 Read More