 |
American Foreign Policy Between Isolationism and Interventionism |
 |
The American public, reeling from our debacle in Iraq, is becoming more and more receptive to language of isolationism. This partly explains the appeal of Ron Paul, who invokes the idea of “national sovereignty” to urge us to withdraw not only from Iraq, but also the United Nations, NAFTA, and the WTO, arguing “we must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”
The idea of national sovereignty also figures prominently in discussions of immigration. At the Republican debate last Wednesday, Fred Thompson drew big applause when he said that “a nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation.”
I believe that the United States should not have invaded Iraq, partly because I believe that by doing so we wrongfully violated Iraq’s national sovereignty. And I believe that we should leave Iraq. I also believe Americans, and the American government, should think critically about the international organizations and agreements we enter into. But I do not believe that the principle of national sovereignty knows no limits.
This piece could equally have been titled “National Sovereignty in the Age of Iraq, Darfur, and Guantanamo.” Those three names alone evoke the many facets - and limitations - of national sovereignty as a concept in the post-World War II era. They also evoke the contradictory, even schizophrenic, nature of American foreign policy under Bush.
With Iraq, we illegally invaded a sovereign nation that constituted no threat to our country.
With Sudan, our President called the situation in Darfur a genocide when the UN, shamefully, refused to do so - but then America simply stood by while killings and dislocation continued.
With Guantanamo, we spit in the world’s face by asserting that our national sovereignty gave us the right to violate the Geneva Conventions, detain foreign citizens without due process of law, and torture prisoners.
The belief that universal human rights exist, and that those rights come not from your national government but from your status as a human being, defines the post-World War II, no, the post-Nuremberg world. Following the horrors of Nazi concentration camps, the human community decided that no regime, no nation, could justify its violations of universal rights with reference to national sovereignty.
The chaos and tragedy America has caused in Iraq should not inspire us to withdraw into our shell. Because the reality is, we should not have invaded Iraq - but we should have led an international drive to create an international military force to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Internationalism, not isolationism (or euphemisms such as “non-interventionism”), should be our mantra after Iraq. No more unilateral US aggression. No more “coalitions of the willing” that involve only America, Britain, and those we coerce into joining us with feeble, symbolic contributions. No to the idea of America as the world’s cop. But no, also, to the idea of America as a recluse.
The truth is that for America to be what it dreams of being - that is, a bastion of hope and freedom - we must play an active and leading role on the world stage. How can we talk of spreading democracy around the world when basic conditions of security remain unmet in so many countries? When starvation, disease, and displacement remain facts of life for major sections of humanity? We express the great ideals that built our country not by blowing up foreign countries and then holding sham elections there, but by compassionately and intelligently reaching out to the world and promoting human rights.
The American way has never been to sulk on the sidelines while others do the hard work. The isolationists - whose shallowness is demonstrated by the fact that many of them would have cheered if the US had “won” in Iraq after the first year or two - may want to take their ball and go home, but that is neither realistic nor heroic. In the aftermath of Iraq, we must both compromise and lead. We must extend the ideal of equality that guides America to the entire world, but to do so we must accept some limitations on ourselves. We cannot run illegal prisons. We cannot attack other countries unprovoked.
Internationalism, and not isolationism, is the principle that will harness the power of the American government to do good while restraining its capacity for injustice. Some may object to the idea of a “moral” foreign policy, arguing that all of our previous attempts to impose our morality at the barrel of a gun have only unleashed nightmares on the world - but acting in accord with the consensus of the international community, instead of in spite of it, is the surest way to prevent that from happening again. Going into Sudan with a multinational force to prevent genocide is a far cry from barreling into Iraq with only Tony Blair on our team. And throwing our support behind the international criminal court and other institutions of international accountability will not only confirm our leadership in the world, but also ensure that our leaders have a check on their ability to deny human rights and dignity.
I hope that whatever we do, Americans will reflect deeply not only on the meaning of Iraq, but on the question of what it means that the crises in Iraq and Darfur have dragged on simultaneously. I hope the immorality of interfering in the former - and not interfering in the latter - will give isolationists pause. The question is not whether we should engage with the world or not. The question is how.
Or, one could say that isolationism is a cacophemism of non-interventionism. All depends on your point of view, doesn’t it. The fact is that calling one of these terms a euphemism for the other is just a cheap way trying to smear an opposing viewpoint.
America can do all the things you want it to do in the international arena, as long as the American people go along with your ideas. But remember, being a nation that abides by the rule of law is the sine qua non of all the other “virtues” that you want to spread, even if they go contrary to what other nations prefer to hold as being virtuous. So if you cannot show where the Constitution authorizes the government to use the citizens’ money in your “make the world safe for equality” campaign, then such programs will just have to be financed by private charitable organizations.
The strict Constitutionalist argument, in my view, is a copout. The Constitution was written in the 1700s. We live in 2007. Things do change and while the Constitution rightly remains the bedrock of our nation, a strict interpretation of it leaves us foundering in the past.
Now, I agree with your point that the American people need to be on the side of whatever you’re trying to do. Certainty democracy and rule of law reign. But doing the right thing and abiding by the Constitution can be one and the same.
I guess I reject all hard and fast ideologies, non-interventionism included. We should think long and hard before intervening, yes, but to rule it out altogether is wrong.
I was not attempting to smear the opposing viewpoint; I make serious arguments against isolationism in this piece and also here:
http://www.theseminal.com/2007/11/20/ron-paul-and-easy-answers/
Non-interventionism in general is not always a synonym for isolationism, but given the prevalence of Ron Paul supporters who cloak their isolationism in the language of “non-interventionism,” I have to point out the slippage between the two terms that occurs quite often.
People who invoke the Constitution rarely do so by quoting specific portions of it to back their claims. Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you did so. The Constitution is, it seems to me, relatively neutral on the question of international law and other aspects of international cooperation. If you would like to discuss the Eleventh Amendment or Article 2, Section 2, or any other section you deem relevant, I’m game.
I also wish you would clarify your position with regard to the Constitution. Are you defending the status quo, where the Constitution is threatened daily by an administration that rejects the concept of international law?
Participating more fully in the international community does not mean surrendering the rule of law or Americans’ civil rights (which is what the Constitution is meant to protect) - rather, it represents an extension of these rights and laws, as well as the spirit of the Constitution.
Finally, it is telling that you hide behind the Constitution and do not even address the deeper moral issues raised by genocide and secret prisons.
“Neutral on” is a euphemism for “doesn’t say anything about”, or in the language of the Tenth Amendment “not delegated to.” Actually it is worse than a euphemism. For “neutral” implies that there is some kind of hazy half-way ground between “delegated to” and “not delegated to” - a sleazy bit of epistemological relativism for people who want to fuzzify the Constitution in order to get around it’s very clear language restricting the power of the Federal government. Since the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to get involved in the internal affairs of other nations by using taxpayer dollars for the purpose of alleviating famine, stopping genocides, or imposing American political ideals, it is left to the individual “States respectively, or to the people” to pursue such objectives if they choose to.
To clarify my position, I am opposed to the status quo, where the Constitution is threatened by an administration that accepts the concept that international law (the UN, Codex Alimentarius, etc.) and agreements/treaties (SPP, WTO, CAFTA, etc.) can substitute for and/or override the laws and hence the sovereignty of the United States of America, thereby setting us on track towards international, border eliminating mergers leading ultimately to international Tribunals above the Supreme Court, international Parliaments above the Congress, and unelected international bureaucratic ruling elites above our own Executive authority.
See, but perhaps you take this a bit too far. The Constitution can be interpreted as you say, but it can also be interpreted (and has been) to allow for negotiations and treaties beside or above it. Indeed, it gives the President power to negotiate treaties and Congress to ratify them. This says to me that if we want to enter into these international organizations (which could be apocalyptic as you say, or could be very useful and just), we can ratify them if we so choose.
Here’s my question to you: What should the US do about genocide? If I were to take your argument, I think I would say either do nothing or wage unilateral wars. Neither seems particularly just to me. So, what should we do?
I think this is exactly right. The global economy has evolved to the point where we cannot afford to be isolationist. The real question to me is: How we regain our credibility in order to take on a leadership role in the new global economy?
NO! The only way to move ahead with “internationalism” is to “COMPROMISE” and “CONFORM” to the rest of the world’s views, which means a one world socialist government??? SCREW THAT. I bet progressives are just knawing their own knuckles over that in delight.
I think a period of sulking would be just fine, thank you. A few decades to reflect on what Americans want as their role in the world.
i agree America shouldnt of have invaded Iraq! we have so many Arabs locked up in Guantanamo bay without trials- theyre being treated horribly- also theres so many stories of our army men treating Iraqi’s horribly- i read about how they urinated in the food they were handing out to the Iraqis, and how they rape girls, there was also a story about how they made a boy have intercourse with his mother….and why are we still in Iraq- what the hell do we want from them—- I doubt Osama’s still alive- he probeby dead long before from old age- hes to old to be alive hidding out in mountains.