American Idealism and Realpolitik - Essay Example

American Idealism and Realpolitik Introduction In this paper the role of the United s as a super-power is analyzed from the point of view of idealism and realpolitik. It is argued that the United States has to keep its current foreign policy of intervention in the international arena in order to keep some minimum level of peace and security in a troubled and hostile world. A real solution would be to hold American values like democracy and the application of the rule of law to help the democratic landscape. Lately, there has been an urgency to apply participatory democracy in all nations, but without the implementation of the rule of law in all spheres of democratic life it would be impossible to live in a secure and peaceful world. American intervention is necessary for keeping the balance in a new world order. Currently, the need for financial stability is a high priority. Besides its financial effects it can trigger social problems like strikes and national problems like wars. Besides stability there is a need to solve many conflicts in the international arena like in Irak, Afghanistan, China, etc. So the present state of affairs is very complex in the context of achieving financial stability in the United States and worldwide. There is a need to take a stand based on idealist or realist positions or both in the context of American foreign policy. In this line of thinking in this essay it is argued that the United States can keep its intervention at the international level through the use of the concept of “Smart Power” as suggested by Hillary Clinton. American Idealism and Realpolitik The United States has been characterized by holding idealism as one of its main features as explained by The Resolute Group. It argues that most of American foreign rhetoric is idealistic. This idealist perspective is associated to the Monroe Doctrine (U.S. Department of State, 2009) and Woodrow Wilson’s policies. But there is a real conflict between idealism and realism (realpolitik) since they hold contradictory standpoints as it can be seen below: “Realism and idealism are continuing traditions in American diplomacy for they compete to define the nations objectives. (...) Thus American foreign policy traditionally encompasses both prudent realism and moral idealism. Each tradition responds to two indispensable needs; to protect the nation from external threats in a hostile world and to stand for ideals worthy of emulation.” (The Resolute Group, 2006). “Prudent realism and moral idealism” can be translated as “smart power” like Hillary Clinton has termed it and explained it. Interventionism or realism can also be viewed as internationalism as George Bush defined it in the 90’s: For Paul Johnson, it is a blessing that the United States tries to intervene in a troubled and hostile world through the application of its mission to keep peace, democracy, and security around the world. Johnson (2007) remarks that the United States is founded on idealism. There has always been a conflict between idealism and realism in the United States based on American interpretation of its values as explained below by The Resolue Group: “Realism, or Realpolitik stresses the expectation of conflict between states, not collaboration, the need to increase power relative to ones adversaries, the inadequacy of moral precepts as a guide to foreign affairs, and a distrust of others motives. The intellectual tradition of political realism rejects moralism in foreign policy and assumes instead that survival is the nations only acceptable ethical obligation.” (The Resolute Group, 2006). The Resolute Group remarks the dilemma between isolationism and interventionism along the passage of time in the United States, emphasizing its early beginnings from Washington, through Jefferson, to the Monroe Doctrine. The dilemma between isolationism and interventionism has surfaced on a cyclical fashion along the years in foreign American policies. On the other hand, Garton Ash argues that it is “a mistaken belief that the "war on terror" can be won mainly, if not solely, by military, intelligence and police means. (…) The object of the terrorist is often to reveal the "true" repressive character of the state against which the terror is directed, and thus win further support for the terrorists cause”. (Garton Ash, 2004). It can be argued that repressive methods are needed in order to keep a minimum of security and order both in the United States and abroad so a realpolitik position is a valid position as an American foreign policy. It is inminent that a New World Order is taking shape in the international arena. The United States faces many problems, and one of its roles has been to be the policeman of the world. In the face of so many threats, it is logical that the United States has taken this position. One example is the case of Israel that keeps been threatened by its enemies as a target for a nuclear attack by Iran. (Johnson, 2007). Regarding the role of the United Nations, its weakest point is pointed out by Johnson as follows: “The UN has nothing to offer in the way of enforcing laws and dispensing justice, other than spouting pious oratory and initiating feeble missions that usually do more harm than good. NATO plays a limited role, as in Afghanistan, but tends to reflect the timidity (and cowardice) of Continental Europe.” (Johnson, 2007). Indeed, the United Nations is very weak when it comes to establishing order in the world. Besides that there are more than 100 nations that don’t belong to the United Nations and that represent a significant population of the world. In this context, it is necessary for the United States to keep its realpolitik stance. The United States should keep playing its role as a guardian of the world since there are many terrorist threats and many nations are living under the stigma of conflict among them. So the United States can keep the balance in this hostile scenenario. Hillary Clinton coined the term “smart power”, which means “combining "hard" military and economic with "soft" cultural and diplomatic tools.” (Byrnes, 2009). In 1982, Henry Kissinger stated that “Blessed are the people whose leaders can look destiny in the eye without flinching but also without attempting to play God.” At the same time, Johnson points out that the tripod on which all geopolitical wisdom rests in the rule of law, the consultation of the people and the certitude that, however strong we may be, we are answerable to a higher power.” (Johnson, 2007). Regarding the article by Johnson, we agree in its overall position to combine idealism and realpolitik in the form of “smart power” as stated by Hillary Clinton. “Smart power” is a pragmatic solution to the dilemma between idealism and realpolitik, but it has to be well understood and applied consistently as a sound foreign policy of the United States. As a super-power, the United States has the responsibility of finding order out the chaos, of transferring its values of democracy and the implementation of the rule of law to other nations so that a more stable and peaceful New World Order can be established. So in this essay it is argued in favor of keeping its current foreign policy of intervention in international affairs in order to procure peace and security in a hostile and troubled world. Conclusion. There will always be a dilemma between idealism and realpolitik for the United States, but this dilemma can be solved by applying “smart power” and “prudent realism and moral idealism”. The solution is to take a middle way between idealism and realism. Based on human terms, the conflict between idealism and realpolitik will never be resolved satisfactorily since they are contradictory worldviews, but at least with the use of “smart power” and “prudent realism and moral idealism” as a middle way the world can be a little be safer and American values of democracy can be established in a hostile world at least in some nations or cultures. So the best solution for the United States is to keep playing its current role as international regulator. Works Cited. Byrnes, Sholto. (2009, Feb. 12). Time to rethink realpolitik. 2 April 2009. . Garton Ash, Timothy. (2004, July 22). Fortress America. 14 April 2009. . Johnson, Paul. (2007, March 12). American idealism and realpolitik. Current Events. 2 April 2009. . The Resolute Group. (2006). Foreign Policy Concepts: Isolationism and Idealism. 2 April 2009. . U:S. Department of State. (2009). Monroe Doctrine, 1823. 14 April 2009. Read More