FOREIGN POLICY: SOME LABELS THAT MIGHT HELP

Aziz Poonwalla has concluded that the various labels people keep throwing out to describe various schools of foreign policy are unhelpful. To the extent that people are trying to fit various opinions into the boxes "liberal", "conservative", "moderate" and "ideologue" he's right - those labels are pretty worthless. However, the following doctrinal positions serve to clarify the muddled foreign policy debate. In brief, the three main issues that divide the various approaches are the following:

1) How involved should America be in international affairs?

Isolationists oppose American involvement

Internationalists support American involvement


2) What is the proper role of international institutions in American foreign policy?

Unilateralists believe American foreign policy should be conducted independent of international institutions

Multilateralists belive American foreign policy should be coordinated with international institutions


3) To what extent should American foreign policy goals be linked with the promotion of American values:

Idealists believe that a central objective of American foreign policy should be to promote liberal democracy

Realists believe American foreign policy should be unencumbered by ideological constraints



Different answers to these questions have produced the following schools of thought that are most dominant in American political discourse. The nuances on other questions are irrelevant for the various Isolationists who all agree that America should scale back its international commitments and focus more on domestic problems. The Internationalists break down into the following four groups.


1) Classical Realists: Unilateralist & Realist. The relevant international actors are states - and the principle of sovreignity is essential to international order. The balance of power and the access to essential resources, not ideology should drive policy objectives. This ideology is best represented by "conservative" foreign policy establishment such as Henry Kissenger, Brent Scowcraft and Bush the Elder.


2) Global Realists: Multilateralist & Realist. In the wake of globalization, trans-national and sub-national institutions are more relevant than nation states. International institutions, such as the U.N. and IMF need to be strengthed to maintain order. The United States needs to coordinate its policy actions in accordance to international law and institutions. This ideology is best represented by the "liberal" foreign policy establishment (Sandy Berger and much of the Clinton team), and dominates European thought on the issue.


3) Pax Americanas: Unilateralist & Idealist. International institutions are not only insufficient to the task of managing global order, but they are hostile (or indifferent at best) to the values of liberal democracy. The United States, therefore, needs to use its position as global hegemon to promote a liberal democratic order worldwide through proactive diplomatic and military intervention.
The clearest supporters of this view are the "neocons" such as Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and William Kristol.


4) Neo-Wilsonians: Multilateral & Idealist: This is the least developed position, but if you define it opposition to the other three it effectively advocates the promotion of liberal democracy through international institutions. American foreign policy should be based on partnerships with these institutions to engage in nation-building, democracy promotion and environmental cooperation. This is a position that the progressives outside the anti-American camp (e.g. Josh Marshall, American Prospect) are groping towards in a more or less defined manner.


Thus, summing up the current debate on Iraq:

1) The Pax Americanas are the war's strongest advocates for obvious reasons.

2) The Classical Realists are worried that the war aims are too ambitious, would mire the U.S. in a long-term nation-building project and would destablize the region. They advocate a more cautious approach, such as replacing Hussein through a coup with a more amenable despot.

3) The Globalists are opposed to the war because of its unilateralist nature. There is no international sanction for such an action, and the precedent of preemption sets a dangerous precedent. They are also opposed to the concept of America "imposing" its values on another nation.

4) There hasn't really been a coherent Neo-Wilsonian argument, but the closest to one would be as follows A war to replace Hussein is only justifiable in terms of a serious commitment to build a democratic Middle East. They are skeptical about the war because the international community is not on board, and they do not trust the Bush Administration to successfully manage the war's aftermath. These two issues link in the idea that international cooperation is essential to effective nation-building.