Large governments concern themselves with maintaining a positive image abroad to maintain a superpower status. Strong foreign policy opens up global influence in diplomacy, economic benefits through trade relations, as well as respect which bodes well for national defense. The United States has arguably lost credibility abroad for its poor foreign policy, so it becomes important for the next President of the United States to recognize the components of strong diplomatic rapports abroad.
United States' Military Empire
The idea behind non-interventionism is simple: that people do not like to be controlled by authorities, especially those that they do not recognize as legitimate. Revolutions and domestic conflicts often arise due to pressures placed on average people by these intervening forces. More often than not, these unwanted authorities are other nations’ governments or domestic dictators.
Specifically in US history, policies of non-intervention tend to correspond with economic progress (Monroe Doctrine and Industrial Revolution, for instance) and policies of aggression correspond with economic struggles. The purpose of this article is to emphasize that non-interventionism is a foreign policy that should be taken seriously.
What is Non-interventionism?
Non-interventionism in the United States is a term used to describe any foreign policy which does not infringe upon the self-determination of any foreign nation to operate as they choose so long as they are not initiating force on the United States in any way. Non-interventionism is not pacifist, and it allows (and may even require) strong retaliation if a foreign nation invades. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (under the mantra “speak softly and carry a big stick”) provides an appropriate image to encompass this idea of protecting US interests in the event of an attack.
The Founders have it laid out this vision of non-interventionist foreign policy quite perfectly, as George Washington’s Farewell Address noted:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Thomas Jefferson said it more articulately in his inaugural address:
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
And President Monroe’s moral justification for the aforementioned Monroe Doctrine strikes home the idea:
In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense
The moral foundations of a policy of non-intervention are set in the non-aggression principle. It is often viewed as a requirement if men are to live in cooperation together in a civil society. It is arguably the American Doctrine of Non-Intervention (Secy. of State, William H. Seward) that has allowed America to gain a strong foundation in the world.
Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism
The biggest misconception of non-interventionism is that it is literally the same as isolationism. Isolationism entails the idea that the United States is to be completely cut off from the rest of the world. This includes not only cutting military presence, but also trade and communication with outside nations. Obviously such a foreign policy would lead to an unsustainable economy, susceptibility to foreign intrusion, and general domestic malcontent.
In his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Dr. Paul outlines this distinction very bluntly:
“Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations.”
By this policy, it is not moral for the United States to serve as the global cop. Since 1945, the United States has become a nation of aggression and empire-building. For instance, the US has been actively involved in “peacekeeping operations” in Korea (Truman), Cuba (Kennedy), Dominican Republic (Johnson), Vietnam (Johnson), Grenada (Reagan), Panama (Bush Sr.), Kuwait (Bush Sr.), Somalia (Bush Sr.), Bosnia (Clinton), Kosovo & Serbia (Clinton), Afghanistan (Bush Jr.), Iraq (Bush Jr.), and now Libya under Obama.
While both non-interventionism and isolationism would have done without many of these acts of aggression, a policy of non-intervention would have avoided the costs of war whilst maintaining a strong domestic economy. Isolationism would have led to the collapse of our manufacturing sector. As they say, the greatest export of the United States is presently fiat currency.
War only destroys. There is no associated opportunity cost wherein the US would gain anything significant for overthrowing a dictator, let alone establishing a democracy and exploiting their tax base. It has been reported that over 6,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as 140,000 innocent civilians. It has been estimated by the Congressional Research Service that the United States has authorized over $1 trillion in budget alone to war since 9/11 — and that’s a low figure. More reputable sources cite between $3-4 trillion in operational costs. Well, I’ll let the chart from The Watson Institute speak for itself:
Moral Considerations At Home and Abroad
With a non-interventionist foreign policy, the US would not have intervened in the Middle East and would not maintain an entangling alliance with Israel. It is the United States’ presence in the Middle East that prompted 9/11, NOT their jealousy of our freedom and rights. Despite this, the United States maintains at least 700 foreign bases in 130 other nations. The theoretical premise for this occupation is that the US has a moral obligation to secure peace. Peace cannot come about through violence and warfare.
According to most Conservatives, this peace can only be kept through preemptive warfare. While I disagree, it is a legitimate question to ask: “What would you do about a dictator such as Qaddafi who is oppressing his people?”
The answer to that would hinge entirely on your moral principles, whatever they may be. (update: 04/2012 on taking the moral highground)
The question becomes: If the US is morally obligated to act in some cases, but cannot do so at the taxpayers’ expense, how can the US morally respond?
The Presidency has at its disposal a combination of global peer pressure/influence, diplomatic compromises and international agreements, economic sanctions, and finally it can encourage volunteering and donations to the cause by private citizens. Military action accompanied by a draft, funded by taxation, or one which includes any other type of coercion are not viable in my eyes.
Conclusion
Non-interventionism is a foreign policy that has worked throughout history, and was essential in the founding of this country. The consequences of this, as far as foreign policy is concerned, are that anything remotely aggressive like preemptive strikes, drone attacks, CIA assassinations of US citizens without due process of law, maintaining foreign military bases in countries as a feat of empire building, etc. — these aspects of US foreign policy are costly to US interests.
Thank you,
D
