Foreign Policy Requires Flexibility

We have some serious foreign policy decisions to make in the near future.  Since nations seldom commit acts of foreign policy with countries who are friends and allies, we have to negotiate with people we don’t like.  So what should we use for guidance?

The United Stated Constitution is not silent on our foreign affairs.  Articles I, II, and III all have sections and clauses that provide regulation of our conduct and intercourse with foreign governments.  The law is there, but what about the philosophy?  How do, “We, the people…” place our values into our foreign policy?  That is what treaties do, and that is why the Senate is required to pass judgment on them. 

            Laws that would regulate our foreign policy must embrace two important goals.  First, we need to be able to deal with other governments on a short term basis in that way which would promote the best interests of our country.  Remember, a country is a collective, “self.”  Survival and self-preservation are givens, without which, altruism can’t occur, no matter how desirable.  Second, we need to be able to project our relationships with foreign governments toward a future which would serve a global good that included, but was not restricted to, our own country. 

Think of what happened when we support the efforts of WHO to eradicate smallpox.  At the time of the worldwide vaccination against smallpox, actions were taken that would not be tolerated at the present time.  Whole villages in many third world countries were rounded up (frequently at gunpoint) and vaccinated.  Financial pressure and physical duress were commonplace as we rid the world of a terrible disease.  What is more, the places where smallpox would have been most devastating were the very places where the harshest measure frequently had to be used.  There were no provisions for the inevitable mistakes, medical malpractice, and allergic reactions.  Smallpox was simply made to disappear as a threat to mankind.  Collateral damage was an acceptable given.

            Does that mean that smallpox should have been allowed to live, breed and do its worst in the poorest parts of the world?  If we could get rid of cancer in the same way would we advocate such action?  Does that mean that such abrogation of typically, “American” human rights should be tolerated whenever we feel a greater good is going to be served? 

The difficult answers to these questions reflect the legalistic flexibility a foreign policy should reflect.  It means we should have a strongly pragmatic view toward our relations with foreign governments.

A short term solution does not have to become a legalistic absolute.  We have recognized this truth in the past.  We didn’t make deals with Stalin at Yalta because we liked him; we did it because we needed to defeat Hitler.  And that early alliance didn’t keep us from practicing containment of his Communist government after the Nazis were defeated.  There is a real advantage to letting other nations know that we feel free to either use or abandon them as best serves our purpose.  It might keep them on their toes.     

            Our foreign policy should always reflect the best interests of our people.  This is also the only standard our interlocutors will use. If, in so doing, we can also make the world a better place, so be it, but weakness has yet to solve a single problem in this world.  Every step we take should offer the best decision at the time, given the best facts available, and carry the promise that we can change our mind when needs and circumstances require. 

            Stay flexible and keep the faith.