I was recently watching a little bit of a program on PBS where they said Muslims worldwide view the US as a beacon of freedom, but hate our foreign policy. And this got me to thinking: Why is US foreign policy so different from its domestic policy?
Allow me to elaborate. In the US, we have freedoms that put even some of the more liberal members of the world community to shame. Hate speech is illegal in much of the world. The Nazi salute might get you 3 years in prison in Germany. Yet in the US, it is considered protected free speech. And there are many other examples, of course.
But US foreign policy is in stark contrast to this. We support horrible dictators like Chile’s Pinochet, and the former Shah of Iran. Why such a big difference?
You do know your domestic laws are really all that impressive to the rest of the liberal west right? I mean sure, they’re nice and all, but we’re not exactly basking in your shadow.
The divergence comes down to ability to project power. The US can do that, other countries (or collection of countries) can not. If you can project power, it’s far too hard not to.
IMO the US’s foreign policies are an extension of domestic policy. I’d expect the British, Roman empires and the passing colonial powers fielded much the same critisism.
Can you cite an example of where an administration supported a foreign policy that wasn’t the pragmatric best fit possible to it’s domestic political interests.
Lord John Marbury:“that’s the price you pay for being rich, free and alive all at the same time”
Because the American government is not motivated by a high-minded concern for freedom, etc, as such. It is concerned with securing advantages for the American people, or with securing what the American people perceives to be advantages. Freedom and democracy at the domestic level is seen as such an advantage; not so internationally.
Because it is must easier to get people inside the US to obey our laws than to get those outside to do the same.
Contrast, for example, the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the history of Iran after the ouster of the shah. Certainly the US is not perfect now, but Iran has changed from a repressive government friendly to the US to a repressive government that sponsors terrorism.
Or see if you can think of a nation or two on whom the US has tried to impose Western ideas of democracy. Would you say these efforts were more successful than simply leaving their dictators in place?
I don’t understand why having free speech and cooperating with dictators are contradictions. I’m not clear on what you’re implying here: is it that we would support liberty at home and not be friendly with any country that doesn’t meet our definition of basic freedoms?
A little more explanation from the OP would be helpful.
I am not sure I understand your question. But, yes, I do see a contadiction here. I realize it is harder to find places that don’t meet our definitions of basic liberty. But to be taken seriously as a world power, I think it would be worth the “extra effort”. BTW, doesn’t the rest of the (democratic) world criticize us alot for this very purpose? I might do an internet search on this. But in the meantime, what, for example, is Great Britain’s position on this?
Primarily because there is a collection of documents and principles that provide the foundation and rough guidelines for domestic policy while there is no such document or founding principles for foreign policy.
Because the US is no longer an isolationist, inwardly focused nation…nor are we a minor power playing on the fringes of the worlds stage and letting the big boys make all the decisions that directly impact our concerns. We are a global superpower who’s very life blood and prosperity hinges on a world wide trade system that could be adversely impacted by hostile powers. So, in order to secure the strategic needs and aims of it’s citizens the US has to do things that can be distasteful and contrary to our basic stances and internal liberties. It’s that realpolitik stuff.
That’s my take on it. I’m sure others will be along to point out that the US is, at heart, simply the root of all evil, and that really it’s all black and white…
America is greedy, short sighted, and doesn’t regard anyone outside its borders as human; it acts accordingly. It acts ruthlessly and self destructively. And, foreigners have little power over our government compared to the American population. America has NO commitment to freedom and democracy, within or without its borders; the American public just has proximity and historical inertia on its side.
“Hostile powers” that to a large degree our “realpolitik” creates. Much of our foreign affairs consists of trying to deal with the damage previous “realistic” actions by America did to itself. Like it or not, our flailing about in the world is largely against our own best interests.
Is there any nuance in the world you inhabit? Just to take two more notable examples, the US response to the 2004 Indonesian earthquate and the Haitian earthquake earlier this year. Clearly, the US doesn’t regard anyone outside its borders as human.
No, it is EASIER to find places that don’t meet our definitions of basic liberty. Most countries have more restrictions on liberty and economic freedom than we do.
I seriously have no idea what you’re talking about. Extra effort to do what? Internet search on what? Britain’s position on what? I don’t understand what you are suggesting our foreign policy should be in order to address the contradiction you see.
Are you saying that we would not have good relations with countries that we consider less free than ourselves?
I am not exactly sure what you are getting at either. But to put my point another way, yes, I do think being friends with countries like Britain and Pinochet’s Chile is a little contradictory. I still also wonder what Britain’s position is on our supporting dictators. Maybe someone could answer this too.
If that blows your mind, consider how they felt about our relationship with Ireland.
Thinking about their own historical track record on this score, I’m guessing that they probably don’t have all that much to say about it one way or the other.
I understand self-interest, and even find myself agreeing with “neocons” on many issues. But only the stupider neocons could have thought the 2nd Iraq War was a good idea. Richard N. Haass is one of the more intellectual neocons and he knew it was foolish, even writing that he “would go to his grave not knowing” why the Bush Administration invaded Iraq.
(Yes, I know some right-wing diehards still stubbornly insist the War was “right.” I’ve yet to hear any of them even explain Why we went to war.)
Human liberty is all well and good, but it can’t be quantified as part of the economy. American foreign policy is all about maintaining business relationship and negotiating and enforcing contracts.
We deal with foreign dictators because they are easy. They are businessmen in the sense that Mafia dons are businessmen. They will keep the product rolling so long as they get their piece of the action. Their piece of the action almost always includes lots of heavy weapons for their enforcers to use.
Sure, we’ll do the same deals with democracies, but democracies are more unstable and hence unpredictable. New elections may mean disruptions to the flow of products and cash.
Stable business relationships with foreign countries are FAR more important then trying to ensure the human rights of citizens of these same other countries.
There are a few exceptions to these policies, mostly related to domestic public relations issues. The last one that easily comes to mind is when relentless domestic public pressure brought about American embargoes and divestiture from South Africa during apartheid.
