Column on Foreign Affairs Determinism

Foreign Policy Determinism?
Tibor R. Machan
The two Iraqi wars have put the issue of American foreign policy on the
agendas of many pundits, writers, intellectuals, and politicians. Why this
did not happen when Granada, Panama, Kosovo, and other places were at
center stage of actual foreign and military affairs is unclear to me. But
somehow the military targeting of Iraq managed to turn a lot of people’s
attention to American foreign policy–both the motives for it and its
consequences.
In his book, published between the two Iraqi wars, From Wealth to Power
(Princeton UP, 1998), current Newsweek International editor–and host of
CNN-TV’s very good news magazine program, GPS (Global Public
Square)–Fareed Zakaria argued that America has always had an impulse
toward expanding its sphere of influence, often through coercive force,
rarely only because of the need to defend the country against foreign
aggression. And most recently Robert Kagan makes the case, in the new
publication World Affairs, A Journal of Ideas and Debate (Spring 2008),
that the policy of spreading American influence by aggressive means is by
no means an invention of neo-conservatism but some a nearly innate impulse
evident throughout the history of the foreign policies of many American
administrations.
Both Zakaria and Kagan seem to embrace a form of determinism, Zakaria more
directly than Kagan. The fact that America is a prosperous society impels
the nation and its governments to be expansionist, even imperialist, in
foreign affairs. This is not a matter of choice, nothing that could be
otherwise. It is simply the way the world works–big, prosperous countries
just aim to grow bigger, even if they do not always succeed with this
ambition. Kagan simply claims that contrary to what too many commentators
and critics of the George W. Bush administration have argued, the desire
to spread democracy by force is a well established tradition evident
throughout American history, from the beginning to the present. He
believes that the fact that the American Founders believed that the
principles sketched in the Declaration of Independence are universal,
apply to human community life everywhere, makes the expansionist foreign
and military stance unavoidable.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with showing that certain policies,
foreign or domestic, are closely linked to a country’s history in view of
the principles embraced by its constitution and the convictions of its
citizenry (especially its leadership). But does this support the
suggestion that these policies are somehow unavoidable?
Certainly the Founders’ choice of first principles wasn’t something they
couldn’t help making. Quite the contrary–they chose very deliberately and
rejected alternative regimes as they reached their conclusion about what
kind of community the United States of America ought to be. Now with that
choice came a long series of institutions and policies. At each stage some
changes could be made and many have been–throughout America’s political
and legal history the big government versus limited government positions
have kept battling it out, and this continues to our day. (Initial
commitments have considerable but not inevitable influence–one need but
think of marriage where “I do” does but need not determine how things will
turn out!)
Many foreign–as well as domestic–policy theorists embrace a certain
positivist methodology as they “explain” the world. That is, they often
have a firm conviction that they need to identify certain natural causes
that produce states of affairs and shy away from dwelling about normative
matters, namely, what policies ought to be carried. The idea of free human
choices that may be judged right and wrong is not deemed scientific
enough. So there is a kind of self-fulfilling real political bias in their
analysis. Because of this stance, evaluations and proposals are shunted
since they involve value judgments, something that too many such thinkers
consider mere biases, nothing rationally defensible.
But, in fact, a good deal of foreign and military policy rests on what
public policy makers believe should be done, how the country ought to
behave abroad (as well as at home). The sooner the leading thinkers in
these areas recognize that values are what matter most and need to be
rationally explored, the more sensible will the country’s policies become,
both abroad and at home.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Column on Foreign Affairs Determinism

  1. Unknown says:

    HTML clipboard
    منتديات الدوري الأوروبي

    منتدى الدوري الإسباني-

    منتدى الدوري الإنجليزي-

    منتدى الدوري الإيطالي-

    منتدى الدوري الألماني

    منتدى الدوري الفرنسي –

    English Forum –

    SPORT FORUM –  K O R A –

    blogspot


    tags

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s