AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

American foreign policy

American foreign policy

Should the United States be a status quo power in its foreign policy, or should it instead seek fundamental change and reform? This is the question that the Stanley Foundation asked us to address. This thorny issue is being increasingly debated today with an intent focus on the Greater Middle East. For years, the United States was seen as a status quo power in this region of the world, supporting non-democratic regimes in the name of preserving stability, security, and access to oil. Beginning in late 2001, however, the United States dramatically switched gears by becoming a revolutionary power in the Middle East, seeking regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq and promoting rapid democratization throughout the region (Kissinger, 1974).

Although those two countries now have elected governments, democratization efforts in the Middle East have been less than effective thus far. Not only have elections intensified sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, they also have brought Hamas to power in Palestine, strengthened Hezbollah in Lebanon, and propelled a Holocaust-denier to power in Iran. Overall, the seeming result has been to make the Middle East more dangerous, to expose the limits on U.S. influence in the region, and to raise questions about the feasibility of establishing western-style democracy there. While the future is uncertain, this checkered record has reopened the issue of status quo vs. reform in ways that mandate constructive solutions not only in the Middle East, but elsewhere (May, 1963).

Notwithstanding the arguments of some realists and idealists, U.S. national interests and values are not inherently antithetical—indeed, they are often harmonious and point toward the same policies. In cases where they are not compatible, protecting national interests normally is given precedence over promoting American values abroad. Yet when values can be pursued without harm to national interests, they can merit a good deal of commitment—provided the effort offers promise of success. As Henry Kissinger has pointed out, in a democracy it is often important to invoke values in the pursuit of national interests(Kissinger, 1974). A classic case was President Woodrow Wilson's use of American values to justify U.S. participation in a World War that was also fully justified on the grounds of U.S. national interests(May, 1963).

A war to defeat Germany and its allies in Europe was justified as a war to uphold liberal values, including human freedoms and self-determination. Regardless of whether ...