The need to devise a “grand national strategy that distinguishes between the vital and the secondary interests of the country and secures all of the vital interests and as many of the secondary interests as can reasonably be achieved with the fewest risks and costs,”[1] sounds obvious. It’s not even a profoundly innovative philosophy. It’s called self interest. Why haven’t we done it? The first reason is a lack of accurate feedback and accountability. The lack of short term payback for long-term progress does much to limit its attractiveness. Potential catastrophe with all of its blame can occur in a heartbeat, potential improvements can sometimes only be seen after lifetimes. The second reason is the fact that no one likes to make or even talk about tradeoffs. The issue is that we are not all powerful and when everything cannot be done tradeoffs must be made. In such a situation, confusing needs and desires is a dangerous game. After immediate threats and dangers have been addressed, and only then, can we begin to look toward actions that might help in the long term.[2]
We must retain the emphasis on personal liberty and rights. The American Revolution continues. Our nation is, in its essence, a revolutionary country,[3] but when our revolutionary mission has yet to be satisfied at home, our first priority should rest there, not in pushing it on others abroad. The spread of democracy abroad is far from an imperative of foreign policy and should only be pursued actively in extremely limited circumstances where the benefits far outweigh the costs and the potential risks are minimal. This means very rarely. We must understand the incredible difficulties of the democratic struggle. One needs to simply: “Look back at the long struggle in Britain—the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, enemies from within and without, usurpations of kings, intrigues of bishops, invasions and Jacobite uprisings,” to see the difficulties of defending democracy at home and the dangers of trying to spread it abroad.[4]
As stated before, such actions will revolve on whether our vital interests are defined as what makes us rich, keeps us safe, eases our consciences, or some combination of the three. It is unlikely that we cannot always have all of them. Coming to terms with the reality of those priorities and the limits of our power will make foreign policy decisions more understandable and acceptable to both the Americans they claim to represent and the world they affect. The disparity between our claimed motivation of democratization and equality and many of our policy actions simply adds more fuel to the fire of global dissatisfaction that they have sparked.
When you cannot rely on fear of an enemy (such as the case during the Cold War) or of yourself to push allies into your arms, then there is only one alternative: desire. Legitimacy is the key to success. We must never threaten or offer what we cannot or will not deliver. Trust is more important than temporary gain. Values are difficult, if not impossible, to impose. To lead by example is the only way we will be successful in spreading them. If the world follows then the best of luck to them; we will offer a hand to them if they ask for it. If they do not, we will not coerce. But the most important thing we must do is constantly ensure that the values we espouse are the values we embody.
"Whatever
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
[1] Meade, op. cit., pp. 333
[2] Meernik, James. “
[3] Meade, Walter R. and Richard C. Leone. “Special
[4] Meade, op. cit., pp. 182
No comments:
Post a Comment