American Foreign Policy suffers from the impossible balancing act between Wilsonian Idealism and Kissingerian Realism. In their idealist garb, the Americans consider themselves as the progenitors of freedom, democracy, liberalism, and capitalist market economy. But realism demands that foreign policy be tailored to meet the specific geo-political imperatives and economic compulsions. This necessitates compromises and even deceptions, that may strike at the heart of the ideological facade. It is this contradiction that confuses and outrages other countries, and severely undercuts American claims to any moral superiority.
The contradictions in Policy become evident as actions do not match words. You cannot stand for promoting democracy, while sabotaging popular democratic process in Latin America, Algeria and Palestine. American cannot sing the virtues of free speech even as it is supporting Television channels like RCTV which openly incites violent overthrow of a democratic government, and placing restrictions on the operations of hugely popular channels like Al Jazeera. How can you preach the virtues of free trade and capitalism, while indulging in blatant protectionism in agriculture? How can you talk about free movement of capital, when you cite national security to disallow any major FDI from a nation called China? America cannot talk about saving the environment when it is standing in the way of implementation of the universally accepted Kyoto Protocol. How can you selectively sing the tune of multilateralism, when your country stands out among civilized nations, in not having signed a host of UN Conventions on basic civil rights and repeatedly mocks at the United Nations by unilateral actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and many others? How can a country whose Middle East policy is controlled with a very tight leash, by the zealots in the extreme right-wing American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), be considered a honest mediator in the Middle East? How can a Government which is effectively a captive of powerful pharmaceutical companies, with the sole objective of keeping even life-saving drugs expensive at the cost of millions of African lives, be a reliable and sympathetic partner for African countries? How can you talk about human rights, while maintaining Guantanamo Bay and tolerating war crimes like Abu Ghraib?
Harvard Professor, Joseph S Nye had coined the term "soft power" to highlight the difference in American influence from that exercised by leading powers in history. He emphasised that "soft power" has its roots in American democratic political culture, free-market economy, liberal social values, ideals like free speech etc, besides the various visible embodiments of American style capitalism like McDonald, Mickey Mouse, Hollywood, CNN, Nike and Gap.
This claim for a superior moral ground and being the torch-bearer of all that is good and desirable in this world, was irreparably tarnished in the developing world, due to the actions during the cold war period. The open support for Israeli genocide and blatant violations of UNSC resolutions, had destroyed all credibility in the Arab world. The invasion of Iraq with fabricated claims of presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the subsequent events during the occupation, the rampant cronyism in international oil contracts and UN assisted rehabilitation projects in Iraq, have all contributed towards eliminating any vestiges of moral authority in Europe and rest of the developed world.
The State Department outlines that one of the major objectives of US foreign policy is "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." This is fine as a normative framework to hang your foreign policy initiatives. But in the final analysis, any decision will have to be taken based on national interest. If any of the ideals conflict with national interest, the later will have to prevail. Therefore the problem starts the moment you start justifying all your actions based on these ideals.
America would do well to refrain from its aggressive promotion of these lofty ideals, which it does not itself follow. The universal principles of democracy, freedom of expression, liberalism and free-markets can be the normative signposts shaping the broad contours of its foreign policy. These principles should not however become the primary determinant and the facade for the policy itself. National interest alone should fulfill that role.
Therefore, the Middle East Policy should be advocated in terms of American oil interests and domestic compulsions regarding Israel. The emergence of Hugo Chavez and Co could be resisted, not by invoking the name of democracy, but on the grounds of containing spread of revanchist Marxist ideologies in America's backyard. American Economic Policy should be conducted based on national economic interests and not on high principles of free-markets and free trade. America need not shy away from conceding that it supports the oil and pharmaceutical companies at any cost, because they are the largest political donors. There is nothing objectionable about holding the view that even democracy can and will be sabotaged, if it comes in the way of American national interests. But do not justify it by invoking a more holier and purer version of democracy and free speech, that America claims to espouse. There is no need to hide the fact that American environmental policy has to take care of the interests of its corporate citizens? Fine with multilateralism if we can, but we will act unilaterally if we should!
Realists proclaim that the ultimate test of the success of any policy is whether it enhances the national power or not. Given that American foreign policy has been in practice imbued more with realism than any idealism, it is only appropriate that this policy be underpinned by promotion of national power. This strategy will atleast ensure that America is not exposed to charges of hypocrisy and double standards.
It was Lord Palmerston who famously said, "There are no permanent friends and enemies in relations between nations, only interests". This has been the underlying theme in American Foreign Policy throughout the Cold War. The Unites States should embrace it again in the conduct of its foreign policy, thereby insulating it from the damaging charges of duplicity. The ideological strand for this policy can be derived from a methodology that relies on a rational and scientifically evaluated cost-benefit analysis of foreign policy alternatives, which would elevate any policy to a more objective plane. Maybe there ought to be more game theorists, behavioural scientists and economists at the Foggy Bottom!
No comments:
Post a Comment