REDEFINING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
In an earlier piece, I touched upon the United States’ use of military and economic prowess to achieve our foreign policy objectives. Throughout the majority of the twentieth century, this Realist strategy worked — and it worked quite well for our interests, but what changed? In 1975, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was France’s president and invited five other global powers to discuss economic issues that were affecting the day, with issues ranging from international cooperation to world trade to the responsibilities of democracies — modern globalization was born. Globalization has taken the form of commerce without the hindrance of borders or the control of individual governments. Competition and profit are placed above human rights and environmental issues — a correction is in order. Countries that have been used as dumping grounds for toxic wastes, manufacturing without concern for adverse effects on the environment, and the exploitation of the poor all in the name of profit, has fostered resentment for Westernization and the American Way. Moreover, globalization has shifted power away from sovereign states and towards individuals and corporations, thus opening access to increase wealth and power that previously was reserved for nations and states. In short, modern globalization has changed the geopolitical structure encompassing today’s global reality, and as such, a reevaluation of America’s approach to foreign policy is critical to improve security to the Homeland and abroad.
A differing approach must be reflective of a smaller and more interconnected global community. Developing situations between the U.S. and Cuba; the rise of the Arab Spring and transition to the Arab Winter; and waning international support for the U.S., where should we go? Realism is outdated, with its focus bound to the vital interests of a State without regard for affected populations abroad. Moreover, the Realist approach is further hindered by a Neoconservative twist placing America’s past, present and future at the forefront of policy at the expense of everything else — I like to describe this as realism with a patriotic flair. The Neo-Con approach places democracy and American morality as superior and unilateralist to countering worldviews.
Condoleezza Rice wrote an article describing the need for change in US foreign policy and described what I would call Realism with a Liberalist approach. Her essay, Rethinking the National Interest was interesting. The essay almost seemed to be propaganda forcing the reader to endorse George W. Bush’s foreign policy as the end — be all approach to addressing the rest of the world. However, looking past the rhetoric, she neglected to include any power center except for established governments. I see this as a downfall to the Realists approach in international relations for our future prosperity and security. It is good to see today’s thinkers and policy makers adjusting to some of the issues arising throughout the world concerning policy. However, this hybrid Realist approach falls short, primarily excluding important factors such as, the environment, other civilizations, and various organizations with humanitarian missions.
I submit the era of the Realist has past and the time for the Liberalist approach to global policy is at hand. This path will provide a lasting and dynamic platform more appropriate for today’s rapidly morphing political structure and foster greater opportunities for the Global South, while strengthening the global economy. However, several obstacles present themselves; how do we move forward with this approach when Realism has dominated our foreign policy? Moreover, will our politicians risk trying something new — new and bold approaches may place their reelections in jeopardy?
Today’s international centers of power go beyond the traditional state, and resets with a multitude of international actors spanning from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank; to Doctors Without Boarders and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; to media outlets ranging from National Public Radio to al Jazeera. Distribution of power is becoming ever more decentralized, a moving from the influence of super powers and their military and economic prowess. Furthermore, traditional borders associated with the Nation-State are no longer solid, but more reflective of a colander; militaries have been replaced with militias; individual and corporate wealth accumulating; and United States influence wavering, a new approach to US foreign policy must be implemented.
Robert Kaplan wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly called The Coming Anarchy. I found it one of the most influential articles supporting the Liberalist approach to foreign policy. Kaplan describes an ongoing issue within West Africa where he identifies several issues that Liberalism addresses and offers an effective approach to democracy and regional stability. He posits the strategic danger facing the world today is an increase in “disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources, refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states and international borders, and the empowerment of private armies, security firms, and international drug cartels.” These issues are not addressed with a Realist approach to foreign policy — this is tantamount to an ostrich burying his head in the sand. The facts are still there and cannot just be ignored — this is the failure of U.S. foreign policy.
Often heard in the media — international fear, anxiety, and hatred directed towards the U.S. is directly related to our foreign policy. The current use of Realist based foreign policy does what its been designed to do, promote Our Democracy, Our Values, and most importantly, putting Our Nations interest first regardless of the impact to others. Unfortunately, this direction has come full circle and degraded our position as the world leader. Our policies that supported the likes of Saddam Hussein or arming and training Afghans to fight the Soviets in our proxy wars, have had negative effects for the image of the United States across the globe. We have failed to place value on other cultures and have chosen to impose our way of life in its stead; we have failed to address environmental changes due to our internal politicals; and, our policies have negated the importance of religion as a focal point in the lives of many cultures throughout the world.
Rather than imposing U.S. foreign policy upon the world, the development of global coalitions with narrowly defined objectives that promote cooperation in areas such as human rights, the environment, and trade, will foster an environment where the United States may further its role as the global leader and accomplish our international objectives, while providing for a comprehensive world view that places value upon other cultures. Working with global partners will promote a coordinated effort to provide policy that encourages participation, rather than exclusion or a unilateralist approach. The Liberalist approach bears in mind a broad-spectrum of issues and is the most pragmatic and realist approach to addressing the dynamic changes affecting us today. Moving forward, multilateralism must be fostered for the United States and the world to improve global relations and security.
