Foreign Policy Polarity

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy. Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles." Condoleeza Rice, Ph D., U.S. Secretary of State (02/05/2005)

An acquaintance sent me this quote, and the ensuing discussion prompted me to think through some things. First, of course, is the use of"giggle" which is notably colloquial language, and probably deliberate. Insofar as they do"giggle," I think it is mostly because of the constant gap between our stated ideals and our demonstrated self-interest. But the"giggle" line is also an attempt to obscure the fact that Europeans have often been at the forefront of the movement to create international institutions which are intended to enshrine moral principles in international relations (where is the Hague?) rather than relying on individual countries to be independently ethical in their pursuit of self-interest. The implication is that European foreign policy which conflicts with ours is unprincipled, and if I were a European policy maker I would see this as evidence that any"thaw" in relations is yet to come.

Nearly everyone casts good foreign policy in terms of enlightened self-interest: policy which is insufficiently self-interested is"altruistic" (which sounds good, but most so-called altruistic actions are in fact rather self-oriented and intended to have concrete benefits) and policy, which is too self-interested, is unenlightened. Foreign policy based on moral and ethical principles would be a great thing, to be sure, but everyone thinks they've got one: because they define the terms and the event horizons differently, they are all right.

I find that conservatives (and I'm using these terms very loosely) tend to carry out altruistic acts in an episodic fashion, in which selectivity is acceptable (even preferable) and national self-interest is defined with a relatively short horizon. Liberals tend to seek systemic altruism -- including subordination of immediate national self-interest to international institutional interest on the grounds that international systems benefit all of us when they function as intended -- consistency in the short-term, and a very long-term horizon for defining efficacy. Though I'm more a liberal than conservative in this regard, I'm increasingly certain that neither pole is an adequate response to the complexity and reality of the world. Both make certain unfounded assumptions about fundamental human nature and the simplicity of systemic change and efficacy of military action, not to mention the unrealistic sense both have of the nation-state. Both are unnecessarily dismissive of the other with regard to concerns and achievements.

I'm not actually arguing that we shouldn't have an idealistic and altruistic foreign policy, because I do believe that it serves our interests. I've come to believe that systemic simplicity is a myth: democracies function not in spite of their tensions and sloppy decision making, but because of them; there's room for improvement, but anything which locks us into one answer or another on fundamental questions is to be questioned deeply.

I've been trying to think of a way to work North Korea into this discussion (nothing like testing a theory with the worst possible case, eh?). The current attention it's getting is largely undeserved because the announcement changes nothing about the situation: we thought they had nuclear weapons already, and we don't really believe anything they say, anyway. It does raise the question of the six-party talks again. It's true that the reliance on multilateralism is inconsistent compared to our relative unilateralism elsewhere, and our over-reliance on multilateralism combined with sporadic sanctions has failed to produce any visible results. There has been a suggestion that the non-North Korean members of the six-party talks constitute a NATO-like security organization though the idea of Japan and China collaborating long term would require, among other things, resolution of the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands dispute.

The"liberal" position on North Korea would suggest that the multilateral approach is correct, but that's the approach being taken by the frequently unilateral US administration. The" conservative" position on North Korea would suggest unilateral action, possibly of a military nature, but its mostly liberals, insisting on consistency in WMD policy, who have been pushing a more aggressive approach on the administration. Nothing has worked, and the stakes of continued lack of progress could be devastating (yes, I know I wrote this twenty months ago. The stakes haven't changed, and almost two years of opportunities have been lost). Is there no"third way"? Why can't we engage in bilateral talks and multilateral talks with North Korea, as we do with almost all other nations?

I'm all for pragmatic inconsistency, but if we're going to be inconsistent, I'd like to see some results.