Foreign Policy and Pragmatism
In the most current Gallup Poll Americans name the economy (17%)
and lack of confidence in their government (15%) as their chief concerns in
this election cycle. Despite a 3rd
place nod to terrorism, its first cousin, foreign policy was way down the
list. Indeed, the importance of foreign
policy seems to be limited to whether or not we build a wall and who will pay
for it. [I am already on record as
believing that illegal aliens are really the responsibility of the countries who
send them here and we should just deduct $100,000 per alien from the country of
origin’s foreign aid. Then we can let
them decide if they want to build a wall and pay for it themselves.]
But, I digress.
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. But beyond that there are substantive questions
about what overarching principles should or could be codified in law and what
would they look like?
Our
standard for such codes of conduct should be the U.S. Constitution itself. While our laws must carry the weight of
immediate and complete enforcement, the amendment of the laws must be fluid and
responsive. Laws that cannot be enforced produce anarchy and laws that cannot be
changed produce totalitarianism.
Laws that
would regulate our foreign policy would have to embrace two important (and
possibly contradictory) 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 serves a global good which may include, but is 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 have been tolerated at this
time in this country. 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. 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, like it or not.
Should
smallpox have been allowed to live, breed and do its worst in the poorest parts
of the world? Should the abrogation of
typically, “American” human rights be tolerated whenever we feel a greater good
is being served? The answers to these
questions reflect the kind of legalistic flexibility a foreign policy should
reflect. A short term solution to a
problem doesn’t have to be perpetuated in law.
We may have to occasionally crawl in bed with the Devil, but we don’t
have to marry him. Historically, we have
recognized this truth. 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.
Our foreign
policy should reflect our domestic policy.
It should provide the best decision at the time, given the best facts
available, and the confidence to know that we can change our mind when needs
and circumstances change.
Look abroad
and keep the faith.
Comments