Should America intervene in a world gone wrong?
The journal that I subscribe to often writes about American foreign policy. Since I have really only read Noam Chomsky, and although he is incredibly brilliant and has read far more than I will ever read, he still only represents one voice in the multifaceted discussion that asks the question: “Should America Get Involved in Other People’s Business?” I have now read a few bits and pieces from the other side and my vehement opposition to American foreign policy has changed ever so slightly.
The current state of affairs did not happen over night, and that is what I think most people are forgetting. History begins before the dawn of the human race, and just because North America lives in such a fast-paced, quick-fix way, does not mean that foreign policy has to move at such a rapid pace as well. It is true that America remains the only superpower in the post-Cold War world, and I am not entirely convinced that China will usurp this position as so much of China’s economy relies on North American consumerism (which does not show any signs of fading because we want what we want).
As I read more about American foreign policy I am beginning to understand that since we live in a global world, as much as some of us do not want that, we do; America must have a presence in that world. Part of American foreign policy is based on a moral argument that if there is something evil going on in the world, contrary to what is considered moral, action must be taken. Where American policy has gone wrong is not necessarily in the action itself, but in the ulterior motives that are attached to the action under the guise of the moral argument. Take Iraq for an example: Saddam Hussein was responsible for terrible actions against his people. Arguably, something needed to be done to stop him since those he was murdering had limited ways to fight back. In steps America to overthrow the dictator under the guise that this invasion was for the protection of world security (remember the WMDs were a real-fictitious threat to global peace).
However, it quickly became evident that the desire for oil and pressure from businesses to control the business of oil were smuggled in motives as well.
Devious political actions aside, the strongest critique I have read from both sides on the issue of American intervention in the world is that America acts unilaterally. They tend to “go it alone,” like the solemn, isolated, cowboy gunslingers before. America can and should promote morality as a component of their foreign policy. It should try and “do good,” in a world that desperately needs good be done. However, since both political sides within America itself are so polarized there is no discussion about how to effectively carry out that moral aspect for the sake of the good rather than for self-interest.
Instead of reevaluating how the current understanding and view of morality works in America today, and how that would extend and affect other cultures, there is no discussion. The Republicans do what they want to do, and so will the Democrats: neither alone will produce a foreign policy that will be viewed as acceptable by most of the rest of the world. I agree that the G20 and G8 are the most important groups to guide what will happen in the world situation; however they will fail if America continues to act unilaterally because then only their interests will be served due to them being the only superpower. Regarding North American culture, that is something that definitely needs to change.
This present economic crisis will hopefully wake enough people up to realize that we do not need 90% of the crap that goes through our houses, that our food culture is terribly unhealthy for us nutritionally and ecologically, and that our general sense of community is based solely on the individual and has nothing really to do with community. But I’m hopeful that it will change. I can see the beginnings of people realizing that things need to change, and eventually it will become bad business to continue the way most corporations currently carry things out. The hope is that as North American culture begins to change, that will also effect change in the political arena. We can only hope. Canada could be a leader in North America, if it wanted to, by effecting a culture change, but it would have to step out from behind its apologetic and meek stereo-type and stand up to America. The goal of doing good in the world raises a whole can of beans that should invoke continued discussions and if you have anything to say about it or feel strongly about it, write it down here in the comment box.
-by Jon Rowe