The National Interest of the United States of America - Term Paper Example

The National Interest of the United States of America ''With regards to the national interest of the United States of America, notions of power, prosperity, principle and peace can never be truly reconciled.'' The debate between the realist and idealist schools οf 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 οf American foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are often viewed as the most striking examples οf idealism in foreign policy, they have seen America's role as a moral crusader fighting for the classically American ideals οf 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 οf power and national interests. Realism in its most concentrated form argues that the head οf 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 οf 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 οf realism say that; states are the main components οf 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 οf power is imperative to international stability and that relations between states should be trying to obtain this international balance οf power, not to change other states policies. (Ikenberry 2006) During the presidential debate οf 11th οf 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 οf the United States? What's in the best interest οf 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 οf other states. Interference in the internal affairs οf another state is seen as an infringement οf its sovereignty. This sort οf 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 οf common moral and political beliefs. However the practice οf 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 οf human rights, so long as the regime was pro-America, or at least anti- communist, (the 'lesser οf 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 οf 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 οf American unilateralism will be a lasting one. (Mead 2007) Pure idealism argues that one should take the moral route under all circumstances, regardless οf the effect it has on the states national interests. Idealism is motivated by the key assumptions that; the state is only one οf the important actors in the international system. Values should and do shape the states instead οf self-interests. Military distribution οf power is no more important in keeping order than social and economic issues. It is general international conditions, which dictate the considerations οf 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 οf 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 οf 2000 the opponent οf the republican candidate, Bush, was Al Gore. He explained the objectives οf 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 οf 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 οf this earth as a kind οf model for what their future could be." Idealists in America are generally all in favour οf giving moral considerations priority over those οf self-interest when it comes to foreign policy. Doing what is morally right does not always mean the sacrifice οf the national interests οf 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 οf America. This concept was often adopted as part οf Clinton's way οf 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 οf boarders and shorelines. Carter, one οf the best-remembered idealist presidents said in his inaugural address; "Because we are free, we can never be indifferent to the fate οf freedom everywhere." This illustrates the idealist's fundamental desire to achieve for other people οf the world the human rights, which play such an integral role in American society and way οf 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 οf the rest οf 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 οf international relations with America than the Middle East in the present day. The shape οf modern day foreign policy in America was drastically changed by the events οf 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 οf these major steps was to find the instigator οf the attack, Osama bin laden. American intelligence revealed information which indicated that bin laden was in Pakistan, however Pakistani intelligence coupled with that οf the CIA then believed that bin laden was hiding in a mountainous region οf 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 οf bin laden him self. With the disruption οf the Taliban regime the door was opened for other groups hungry for power to fill the void. Again the 'lesser οf two evils' strategy comes in to play. (Zakaria 1998) News reports explain how the short sightedness οf 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 οf the Asia Division οf Human Rights Watch. "These men and others have essentially hijacked the country outside οf 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 οf 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 οf his political outlook left the place οf conflict, Afghanistan in complete turmoil. (Bagby 1999) Another Middle Eastern example οf the effects οf American foreign policy is that οf Israel. But in this instance, in contrast to Afghanistan, the Israelis are close allies οf the Americans. The foundation οf the Jewish state was a direct effect οf the ending οf the Second World War. The conflict arises between the Israelis and Palestinians at the expansion οf the state οf Israel with the massive influx οf Jewish refugees. The American support οf Israel is on one level a result οf the idealist concepts οf foreign policy, that every group οf 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 οf the American population are Jewish. This must be taken into account as the power οf 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 οf any actions, military or other wise, that they deem to be 'anti-terror' operations. "Israel and Washington usually describe Israeli extra judicial executions οf Palestinian resistance leaders and activists as acts οf self defence and part οf a war on terror." This seems to be far from the moral objectives οf 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 οf external threats. I believe that the two schools οf 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 οf their human rights. But the end result left the Afghans in another terrible situation but because οf American interests there was no attempts at building a democracy, this shows all the hallmarks οf 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 οf action. It just shows how over the course οf the relatively young country's political development, the two separate theories οf international relations have become inseparable. References Jentleson, B. American Foreign Policy: The dynamics οf 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 οf 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 οf America's world role, Chichester: Princeton university press, 1998. Nye, Joseph, Bound to lead: The changing Nature οf 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 οf Strategy: U.S. Foreign Policy and the American Way οf Life. Foreign Affairs, 2007, Vol. 86 Issue 2, p169-170 Read More