My seventeen year-old son Matt, a high school senior, wrote this as one of his numerous college admission essays. I share it here as evidence that high school students are more informed than is commonly assumed. They are as concerned about the world as they are about music, cars, sports, and clothes.
Terrorism. Tariffs. Oil. Israel-Palestine. All are major foreign policy issues, but anyone can easily debate which carries the most significance. I suggest none of the above. The major global issue today relates to the makings of foreign policy itself: principle versus self-interest. On one hand, every nation wants recognition as a respectable, honorable state. They want other countries to view them as champions of this cause or that one, and in so doing, increase their influence over these countries. The more highly regarded a state’s reputation, the more weighty its opinion. The problem with this philosophy exists when principle, such as “one man, one vote,” conflicts with self-interest, as we see occurring in Israel now, in their desire to remain a Jewish state.
Examples come to mind throughout history; sometimes principle begins as self-interest. The American Civil War didn’t start as a war against slavery, yet with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, it became just that–and helped prevent the Confederacy from receiving vital foreign aid. Other times, a departure from principle occurs in the name of self-interest. Mikhail Gorbachev, with his glasnost and perestroika, provides an excellent example of this case: his departure from the Soviet Union’s traditions helped end the Cold War.
The United States’ war in Iraq fits into this conflict. The administration knew that basing the war on principle–bringing Democracy to all peoples– would not garner enough support for a pre-emptive strike. Americans, like the citizens of most Democracies, are reluctant to fight in foreign clashes. Instead, our leaders used self-interest as the determining factor, focusing on the argument that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed a direct threat to our nation’s security. The strategy worked, but the government now needs to use principle as a fallback point as self-interest becomes difficult to prove.
France saw an opportunity in America’s push for war to aggrandize itself. It formed its position on the principle of patient diplomacy, ironically similar to the appeasement strategy of pre-World War II. For France, which had fallen far from global power, using a principle growing in popularity represented the perfect option for pursuing its own self-interest.
As we head farther into the twenty-first century, one of the most important questions will concern how we and other countries form our foreign policy. Too much principle will leave one vulnerable to those willing to exploit perceived weaknesses at the expense of the innocent. Too much self-interest will result in a loss of respect from allies and others, and a potentially drastic reduction in global influence. A balance which provides for a country’s well-being while not betraying its commitment to principle must be found.
Matt, Why do you contend that principle and self-interest are mutually exclusive when it is more likely that, at least in democratic states, they are symbiotic? It is wholly within the compelling interest of a free state that governs by the consent of its citizens, to propagate similiar constitutional republics. Further, free people are TRULY able to act in their own "enlightened self-interest" as Hobbes claimed, and thus, the companion free market benefits and strategic alliances will benefit other free societies.
Next, although Lincoln dallied in destroying slavery until the Union had a genuine battlefield victory, you must acknowledge that his pre-secession campaign rhetoric was embraced by the key abolitionists of the day. That is why his election instantly caused the secession crisis.
As to "Every nation wants recognition as a respectable, honorable state"...and..."the more highly regarded a state's reputation, the more weighty its opinion."...I think you might consider that some states are content to be rogues in the world and don't care one bit about ethical standing. Power, wealth and hegemony often serve to supplant any wisp of idealism. Witness the "worker's utopia" of the Soviet system that murdered and enslaved the very workers it purported to value. Mr. Gorbachev's kindly personna notwithstanding, he succumbed to relentless pressure from the West and his own discontented citizenry.
Do you believe that most Americans assume a nexus between Islamo-facist Terrorists and Saddam Hussein? I believe that it was the crucial inference. The common sense reaction to 9-11, Saddam's "bad boy" defiance, the shadowy and fluid nature of Islamicist terror, the tactical realities of asymmetrical war AND the widely-held scolding of Iraq's quest for lots of very dangerous toys was a self-interested attack. I reject your contention of principle as a "fall back point". All of these things and genocidal human rights violations were cited repeatedly in the slow motion lead-up to war.
France displayed its crypto-antisemitism and renewed taste for colonial power in Chirac's grab for influence. It could be argued that it all backfired and was thus, not in France's best interest. The EU's constitution, now in tatters without ratification, suffered at the Franco-German coup attempt against "new Europe" and "little Europe". The French diplomacy was mere camouflage for baser goals and I like your appeasement analogy. As for me, I say, "Let them eat snails!"
I like the weighty nature of your subject choice: principle & self interest. Postulate that, for Americans,indeed all who would dare to prosper in human freedom, the two must be inextricably linked. Let me know what you think. -O'
Posted by: Pat O'Shaughnessy | Monday, January 05, 2004 at 11:23 PM