Photo Credit: New York Times
Hans Morgenthau, the pioneer of Classical Realism
The way a nation interacts on the world stage is the subject of the area of policy analysis we term “Geopolitics”. The way the state interacts with others around the globe has begged the question, how should a state act in its relation to others. Among the countless theories of foreign policy, the two that stand above them all have been a Realist vs Idealist foreign policy. The ideas, born out of the political chaos of the 20th century have each defined American foreign policy in their own ways.
Is it the United States’ business to be The United States in the world? Is it our business to spread democracy, capitalism, liberalism, and security to the rest of the world? The idealists would wholeheartedly agree, taking inspiration in the doctrines of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, both Bush’s and the Clinton administration. American idealism has been our modus operandi since the cold war; but what happened to the sister of Idealism, Realism. If you paid close attention to the aforementioned idealist administration, you might recognize one notable absence from the list. Richard Nixon.
The Classical Realist would argue that it is inconsequential what the “United States” is in spirit, beliefs, and national character. All that matters in geopolitics is who holds how much power, and for how long. The realist would hold that nations, (similar to people), will always act out of securing or expanding their current power. This power is secured through the maintenance (or expansion) of Spheres of Influence. Both sides, Idealists and Realists operate in the interest of maximizing global peace and prosperity- while idealists put their faith in noble ideals of western values, the realists trust that hegemons (like the US and Soviet Union) will not act aggressively, and to a detriment to world peace, unless their spheres of influence were threatened.
In this sense, the classical realist must view the countries of the world as akin to poker chips, the players are the hegemons of the day, the cards are our nuclear arsenals, and the table is the world stage. The realist’s only interest is to satisfy each of the players’ sense of security of their chips. Going back to the Nixon administration and the chief proponent of its foreign policy, Henry Kissenger, the focus was not so much the consolidation of American authority, but the careful maintenance of the Soviet sphere of influence, whilst securing the American. This is why Kissenger very recently advocated for Ukraine to be surrendered to the Russians, as to maintain the balance of power, and the Russian sphere of influence, in the interest of not provoking a World War.
Photo Credit: Washington Post
Henry Kissenger (Left), and President Richard Nixon (Right)
So how does the Nixonian-Kissinger legacy reverberate today? We can look to China on the other end of the 21st century geopolitical poker table, alongside the US. Is it in the best interest of world peace for the US to stay out of places like Taiwan? Kashmir? Tibet? Unlike the USSR the Chinese American rivalry is as much (if not more) economic than land or military based. Should we adopt a stance of letting the Chinese do business in the developing world, so long as they “keep to their own side” while we have ours?
Photo Credit: Seeking Alpha
Whether or not the budding foreign policy of the United States chooses our famous American Idealism or not, the decision for the future of this country, and the world, must be one made out of a careful discourse of how power in the world takes form and action. Only then can we be confident in our place as the leaders of the free world.
Idealism on the other hand is less pessimistic:
Photo Credit: ThoughtCo
In the world of international relations, American foreign policy has long danced to the tune of two contrasting melodies: realism and idealism. These twin pillars, often at odds with each other, have shaped the United States' global engagement over the years. As we look back on this intricate dance, it becomes apparent that the legacy of American idealist foreign policy is a double-edged sword.
The Positive Side of Idealism
When we think of American idealism, we conjure images of a nation championing democracy, human rights, and international cooperation. And indeed, the United States has left an indelible mark on the world stage through these noble pursuits.
Promotion of Democracy: Perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of American idealism is the promotion of democracy. The U.S. has been a stalwart supporter of democratic movements, from Eastern Europe to Latin America, empowering millions to reclaim their political voice.
Human Rights Advocacy: Another facet of American idealism that deserves applause is its unwavering commitment to human rights. Whether it's condemning genocide, advocating for women's rights, or addressing humanitarian crises, the U.S. has consistently championed the cause of the oppressed.
International Alliances: The pursuit of idealistic foreign policy goals has, in many instances, led to the strengthening of international alliances. By aligning with nations that share democratic values and human rights concerns, the U.S. has fostered relationships that contribute to global stability and security.
Humanitarian Aid: Beneath the idealistic banner, the U.S. has stood as a leading provider of humanitarian aid. Whether responding to natural disasters or extending a helping hand to refugees, American generosity has been a beacon of hope in times of despair.
President Bill Clinton, at a press conference discussing military action in Yugoslavia
Credit: NBC News
The Pitfalls of Idealism
Yet, for all its laudable goals, American idealism is not without its pitfalls. Even the noblest of aspirations can be marred by unintended consequences.
Overreach and Hubris: One could argue that idealism has occasionally led to overreach and hubris. The belief in the universality of American values has at times resulted in well-intentioned but ultimately destabilizing interventions, as witnessed during the Iraq War.
Unintended Consequences: Good intentions can pave the road to unintended consequences. Regime change efforts, for instance, may start with the best of motives but often end in power vacuums and regional instability.
Selective Idealism: Critics contend that American idealism has a selective side. The U.S. has been known to support regimes that violate democratic and human rights principles when geopolitical interests come into play.
Backlash and Resentment: Excessive idealism can also breed resentment. The perception of interference in the internal affairs of other nations has soured diplomatic relations and eroded goodwill.
The Contemporary Landscape
Today, the legacy of American idealist foreign policy stands as a testament to the nation's enduring commitment to its principles. But it also raises questions about the challenges of navigating an increasingly complex global landscape.
Challenges in the Middle East: The aftermath of the Arab Spring, marked by civil wars and instability, serves as a stark reminder. While the U.S. supported movements for democracy, the outcomes were far from the envisioned ideal, leaving the region in turmoil.
China and Russia: The U.S. encounters resistance from nations like China and Russia, which view the promotion of democracy and human rights as Western cultural imperialism. Managing relations with these nations necessitates a recalibration of idealist objectives.
Climate Change and Global Health: American idealism has found new expression in addressing global challenges like climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Engaging with multilateral efforts underscores the interconnectedness of our world.
Human Rights and Autocratic Allies: The age-old dilemma of balancing strategic alliances with human rights concerns remains contentious. The U.S. faces the challenge of weighing relationships with autocratic allies against its commitment to universal values.
American Troops Leave Afghanistan
Credit: Stars and Stripes
The Road Ahead
As we reflect on the legacy of American idealist foreign policy, we find ourselves at a crossroads. It is a legacy marked by admirable achievements and sobering setbacks. The United States has contributed significantly to democracy, human rights, and international stability, yet it has faced criticism for selective application, overreach, and unintended consequences.
In the complex global landscape of today, American idealism faces new challenges and opportunities. Navigating this terrain requires a delicate balance between idealistic aspirations and pragmatic realism. The United States must continue to engage with the world as a moral leader while recognizing the need for nuanced and context-specific approaches.
In the end, the legacy of American idealist foreign policy serves as a reminder that the pursuit of noble ideals in international relations is a worthy endeavor. But it must be tempered by a clear understanding of the complexities and realities of a diverse and dynamic world. The dance continues, and the world watches.
Comments