US foreign policy over time
These foreign policy paradigms have each been dominant at certain periods in history.Isolationism
Isolationism has had a deep, formative influence on the American outlook.Early on, isolationism had been the dominant model.
Isolationism was the ascendant American foreign policy model throughout the 19th century and between the two world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalized by leaders who assert that nations' best interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.One argument is that Americans were never really isolationist. That is, Americans never had a reluctance to intervene in the affairs of other states (e.g., Latin America).
What Americans had a distaste for was getting enmeshed in alliances. Alliance can get countries involved in wars not of their choosing.
While some scholars, such as Robert J. Art, believe that the United States has an isolationist history, other scholars dispute this by describing the United States as following a strategy of unilateralism or non-interventionism instead.[11][12] Robert Art makes his argument in A Grand Strategy for America (2003).[11] Books that have made the argument that the United States followed unilaterism instead of isolationism include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004), and Bradley F. Podliska's Acting Alone (2010).[13] Both sides claim policy prescriptions from George Washington's Farewell Address as evidence for their argument.[11][12] Bear F. Braumoeller argues that even the best case for isolationism, the United States in the interwar period, has been widely misunderstood and that Americans proved willing to fight as soon as they believed a genuine threat existed.[14]
"Events during and after the Revolution related to the treaty of alliance with France, as well as difficulties arising over the neutrality policy pursued during the French revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, encouraged another perspective. A desire for separateness and unilateral freedom of action merged with national pride and a sense of continental safety to foster the policy of isolation. Although the United States maintained diplomatic relations and economic contacts abroad, it sought to restrict these as narrowly as possible in order to retain its independence. The Department of State continually rejected proposals for joint cooperation, a policy made explicit in the Monroe Doctrine's emphasis on unilateral action. Not until 1863 did an American delegate attend an international conference."The Doctrine opposes European colonialism in the western hemisphere.
The Doctrine also repudiates American interference in European affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.The Monroe Doctrine highlights a certain moral ambiguity in American foreign policy. Toward Europe, the Monroe Doctrine is anti-imperialist. But in the eyes of Latin Americans, the Doctrine is a form of American imperialism.
But there is another dualism expressed in the Monroe Doctrine. On the one hand, the methods of Monroe Doctrine are unilateralist. The American attitude is typically "We don't need no stinking allies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism
Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action. Such action may be in disregard for other parties, or as an expression of a commitment toward a direction which other parties may find disagreeable. It stands in contrast with multilateralism, the pursuit of foreign policy goals alongside allies.On the other hand, the objective of the Monroe Doctrine is isolationist. Europeans should stay out of the affairs of the western hemisphere and, in return, Americans would not get involved in the affairs of Europe.
The second half of this formulation would change in the 20th century.
Liberal internationalism
With the First World War, the US embarked in a foreign policy of "liberal internationalism".The USA would intervene in the world in order to promote liberal values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism
Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines; these critics characterize it as liberal interventionism.The focus of liberal internationalism is on international cooperation and on the construction of international institutions.
The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve global structures within the international system that are inclined towards promoting a liberal world order. To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal political systems are all encouraged. In addition, liberal internationalists are dedicated towards encouraging democracy to emerge globally. Once realized, it will result in a 'peace dividend', as liberal states have relations that are characterized by non-violence, and that relations between democracies is characterized by the democratic peace theory.
Liberal internationalism states that, through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, it is possible to avoid the worst excesses of "power politics" in relations between nations.When Americans think of foreign policy, they tend to alternate between isolationism and liberal internationalism.
On the one hand, Americans get frustrated with a complicated violent world and just want to "Bring all the troops home!" On the other hand, Americans recall the righteous glory of the Second World War as the high point of American history.
This ambivalence might reflect America's Christian heritage.
The Puritans escaped to the wilderness from a corrupt civilization and sought to transform that wilderness into a paradise.
The escape from corruption resonates with the Catholic monastic ideal. The will to purify society resonates with Protestantism (which contains Catholicism within its DNA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito_Coast
In the wake of the Vietnam war, liberal internationalism began to disintegrate. This led to the ascendance in the 1970s of a paradigm of international relations that Americans do not intuitively understand.
Realism salvaged limited intervention.
The focus of realism in foreign policy is on power as opposed to ideology.Realism emphasizes the pursuit of peace through the creation of a balance of power.
Peace is attained through diplomacy and the formation of dynamic alliances (sometimes secret alliances) as opposed to creating cooperative international institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations)
The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others.[1] If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival coalitions.The embodiment of foreign policy realism would be Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Kissinger cultivated a celebrity status in the 1970s in order to secure his own place in the power structure. In fashioning himself as a celebrity diplomat in the 1970s, Kissinger burnished realism with an idealistic shimmer.
For example, John Adams, the composer of the opera "Nixon in China", once stated that it is ironic that a liberal such as himself would fully approve of Nixon's diplomatic recognition of communist China.
From a realist perspective, however, the USA's normalization of relations with China in the 1970s was part of an attempt to pivot China against the Soviet Union ("triangulation").
Liberals often seem to imagine that Nixon and Kissinger were suddenly overcome by idealistic impulses when they began their secret negotiations with China.
Everyone else in the world can see that Nixon was conspiring with China in order to create a balance of power favorable to the USA (and to China) at the expense of the Soviets.
In the USA, Kissinger is also reviled for his "ruthlessness".
["The Trials of Henry Kissinger", 2002, trailer]
This is a historically unique situation. In fact, it is freakish.
With the exception of the USA, the foreign policy of every country in the world is based on realism. In contrast, Americans alternate between wanting to transform the world into a democracy and desiring to withdraw behind their borders.
Offshore balancing of power as realism
Another example of realism is found in "offshore balancing of power".In this strategy, rather than be a "global policeman" (as liberals would desire), US forces would largely withdraw from regions of vital importance. Such regions for the USA include Europe, the Middle East, Northeast Asia. Instead, the US would support local powers who oppose any one regional power from becoming dominant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_balancing
Offshore balancing is a strategic concept used in realist analysis in international relations. It describes a strategy in which a great power uses favored regional powers to check the rise of potentially-hostile powers. This strategy stands in contrast to the dominant grand strategy in the United States, liberal hegemony. Offshore balancing calls for a great power to withdraw from onshore positions and focus its offshore capabilities on the three key geopolitical regions of the world: Europe, the Persian Gulf, and Northeast Asia.In terms of the Middle East, the prime example of offshore balancing of power was the Iran-Iraq War.
The USA supported Iraq -- the losing side -- against a revolutionary Iran that was hostile to the USA. The balancing of power can involve supporting the weaker party in a regional conflict because the objective is to reduce the power of the strongest party in order to stabilize the region. There is no shame here of spending money on the losing side.
According to political scientist John Mearsheimer, in his University of Chicago "American Grand Strategy" class, offshore balancing was the strategy used by the United States in the 1930s and also in the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War. Mearsheimer argues that when the United States gave Lend-Lease aid to Britain in the 1940s, the United States engaged in offshore balancing by being the arsenal of democracy, not the fighter for it.
That is consistent with offshore balancing because the US initially did not want to commit American lives to the European conflict. The United States supported the losing side (Iraq) in the Iran–Iraq War to prevent the development of a regional hegemon, which could ultimately threaten US influence. Furthermore, offshore balancing can seem like isolationism when a rough balance of power in international relations exists, which was the case in the 1930s. It was also the strategy used during the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union.Unfortunately, sometimes it is not possible to utilize local proxies in a conflict. Sometimes a great power needs "onshore" presence in the region to support proxies. Sometimes it is necessary to use one's own troops to maintain a balance of power.
The US military's presence in Syria backing of the Kurdish SDF is a case of such onshore balancing of power. The motto of balance-of-power realism might be "My enemy's enemy is my friend." The Kurds are the enemies of the Islamic State, which is the USA's enemy.
Trump's betrayal of the Syrian Kurds is an example of a re-emergent isolationism masquerading as offshore balance-of-power realism.
Foreign policy models applied to space
Prescriptively, it might be useful to limit the application of each of the three models -- isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism -- to particular contexts. That is, each model has its own validity depending on the region in which it is applied. This attitude might help to promote stability and reduce discord in foreign policy decision-making.The USA zigzags in its foreign policy.
Depending on the course of international events, public discourse the USA alternates between foreign policy models of isolation and liberal internationalism.In 1993 the US military mounted an operation to arrest a warlord in order to end a famine in Ethiopia. This is a case of liberal internationalism. It led to the Battle of Mogadishu ("Blackhawk Down").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gothic_Serpent
In the aftermath, there was a public backlash against US involvement in the affairs of other countries. Isolationism was (re-)embraced.
A year later in Rwanda, between half-a-million to one million people were murdered in a genocide campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
From this trauma, there emerged a sense that there is a moral obligation to intervene in catastrophic conflicts. Liberal internationalism was (re-)affirmed.
Rwanda's genocide was the deep psychological background to the American invasion of Iraq. Realists wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with the Iraqi military, whereas liberals and neoconservatives saw the invasion as the first step in the democratization and economic transformation of the Middle East.
Rather than zigzag in foreign policy from one model to another, it might be better to assign particular models to particular geographies.
That is, rather than subscribe to one foreign policy model that would be applied universally, each of the above models might apply better to particular geopolitical contexts.
Liberal internationalism applies only to advanced democracies
The first lesson of the European Union is that the joining of nations is facilitated when those countries actually have something in common culturally, and if they are at comparable levels of economic development. The EU might be a perpetual time bomb that will explode whenever there is a major crisis in Europe.The second lesson is that integration should grow organically and not be accelerated.
This first lesson might be applied to the application of liberal internationalism. Cooperative institutions have their limits. However, once those limits are identified, opportunities for integration emerge.
One example would be to extend NAFTA to economically developed English-speaking countries. Over the generations, the Anglosphere could evolve into a loose confederation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere
Likewise, liberal internationalism would be applied to economically advanced democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD
Economically developed nations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
The realm of realism
Realism might also be applicable to countries above that are either blue (developed) or green (democratic), but not both.For example, NAFTA might be understood as an example of liberal internationalism insofar as a free-trade zone is an international framework of cooperation. By that measure, as a developing country, Mexico does not belong in NAFTA. Mexico belongs in the realm of realist policy, not liberal international cooperation.
However, realist foreign policies would apply to regions of vital American interest even if they are neither economically developed nor democratic.
This describes the Middle East (Syria). There are grounds for military intervention in the Middle East, but not for the formation of cooperative institutions that further liberal values in that region.
The realm of isolationism
The USA has no business in poor, undemocratic societies outside areas of vital American interest (e.g., the Middle East and Latin America).For example, the USA should not intervene in Ethiopia or Rwanda, regardless of the level of tragedy that might afflict those countries. However, the USA should intervene with realist policies for South Africa, because South Africa is a semi-developed democracy.
