Fraters Libertas

Looking Out For Number One

In her book Statecraft Margaret Thatcher describes foreign policy thusly:

Above all, foreign and security policy is about the use of power in order to achieve a state's goals in relations to other states. As a conservative I have no squeamishness about stating this. I leave it to others to try to achieve the results they seek in international affairs without reference to power. They always fail. And their failures often lead to outcomes more damaging than pursuit of national interest through normal means of the balance of power and resolute defense ever would have done. It is, indeed, a reoccurring theme in Western liberal democracies, this mixture of naive idealism with a distaste for power- and we should be on our guard against it.

In my view this is essentially what George Bush's approach to foreign policy has been so far. He has attempted to use the power of the United States to further our interests with other countries. Which seems to be the logical approach for the president of the United States to take.

But if you listened to the Democratic contenders queuing up to run against Bush in '04 last week at the DNC winter meeting you got a very different message. They decried his foreign policy as "unilateralist", "going it alone", and "bullying".

From Dick Gephardt:

For all our military might, there are too many threats to our security, too many global challenges for America simply to go it alone. We need the friendship and we need the cooperation of our time-honored allies. We need a president who will lead the world to ward that consensus and will lead by real leadership and not merely trying to bully other nations into doing that. And I would be that kind of president.

Joe Lieberman:

And I will show in this campaign how by pulling out of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, arms control treaties and other international pacts and by issuing an unnecessary and divisive policy of military preemption, George W. Bush has separated us from most of the rest of the world and weakened our alliances, just at the time when we need them more than ever to win the global war against terrorism.
It is a shame that the Bush administration's one-sided, go-it-alone foreign policy has made it so hard for the president to form an international coalition to achieve the worthy international security objective of disarming Saddam.

And these are two of the more "hawkish" candidates seeking the Democratic nomination. The remarks of Carol Moseley-Braun, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich were even more critical of the administration's foreign policy, questioning the wisdom of proceeding with actions not approved of by the world "community".

The Bush administration's domestic actions of late have hardly been what one would consider a conservative agenda other than the proposed tax cuts and judicial nominees. Increased budget deficits, a bloated farm bill, further federal expansion in education, and a disturbing tendency to brag about how much money you're throwing at a problem (vividly demonstrated during this year's SOTU) are not what's going to clearly separate Bush from the Democrats in the minds of the voters.

But his foreign policy will. James Lileks has described it as a choice between the party of the U.S. (Republicans) versus the party of the U.N. (Democrats). Bush and the Republicans make foreign policy decisions based on the best interests of the United States while it increasingly appears that most Democrats want our foreign policy to be subject to the discretion of the world community in particular the United Nations. This wasn't always the case.

If you start with FDR and look at successive Democratic presidents you see that before Jimmy Carter , the foreign policies of Democratic administrations for the most part sought to advance U.S. interests rather than placate the world community. Roosevelt didn't want the U.S. to get into the Second World War to win applause from other countries. He believed that an eventual Allied victory was the best course for the U.S.

Although Truman was able to get U.N. approval when the Unites States entered the Korean War I doubt that he would have acted otherwise without that approval. The Marshall Plan and the policy of containment which were initiated during his administration were designed to limit Soviet expansion and support U.S. allies as was his decision to add the Greek government fighting a civil war against communists. These actions were not universally popular but they were undertaken to win (or at the time at least not lose) the Cold War clearly the overriding U.S. interest at the time.

The Bay of Pigs was essentially a unilateral effort by the U.S. to change the regime in Cuba and Kennedy received a great deal of heat from around the world for it. Although the planning and execution left much to be desired the operation was another example of the U.S. acting in its interests regardless of world opinion. We all recall the famous Adlai Stevenson presentation at the UN during the Cuban Missile crisis but few remember that at the time Kennedy's decision to challenge the Soviets by enforcing a blockade of Cuba was considered dangerous brinkmanship by many countries.

And whatever you think of LBJ's administration and his foreign policy you can hardly say that his decision to expand U.S. involvement in Vietnam was popular with the world community. Whether or not it was the right call is open to debate but he clearly undertook it in the belief that it was what was best for the U.S.

Then came Carter. His presidency was the first with an overt emphasis on human rights and his approaches towards Nicaragua, Iran, and the Panama Canal were clear examples of choosing to do what he considered "the right thing" over long standing U.S. interests. This was a departure from previous administrations both Republican and Democratic and marked that start of the "internationalist" approach to foreign policy for the Dems.

This approach was particularly evident during the Clinton years as his administration played footsie with international groups on the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court agreeing in principal with their ideas while trying to negotiate on the portions that were most blatantly harmful to U.S. interests. His unwillingness to take decisive actions against Iraq and Al Qaeda were at least partly based on fear of criticism from the international community. Military action in Bosnia and Kosovo was carried out under the umbrella of NATO, which limited the ability of U.S. air power to be used in the most effective manner and likely prolonged the length of the conflicts. William Kristol and Robert Kagan called Clinton's approach to foreign policy "the global buddy system".

Of course his predecessor George Bush 41 wasn't much better in this regard. His belief in the 'New World Order' and the desire for coalitions of consensus led to the failure to remove Saddam Hussein from power after the Gulf War even though that result (particularly when viewed in hindsight) would have best served U.S. interests.

Thankfully it appears as if his son will not repeat his father's mistakes. GW appears to understand that the overriding concern of U.S. foreign policy should be to protect its people and advance its interests not to make friends and play nice. This clearly separates him from the current crop of Democratic hopefuls.