“The greatest weakness of pragmatism is that it ends up by being no use to anybody”
T.S. Eliot
President Clinton’s current dilemma over whether to extend “most favored nation” (MFN) trading privileges to China underscores a dichotomy in American foreign policy.
What balance should exist between the moral values a nation professes to hold dear and its perceived self-interest in the development and implementation of foreign policy? Closely related, whether that balance should be consistent, irrespective of any specific nation.
For many, preserving national security is the overriding metric. While few would argue with the position, protecting our nation, its people and our way of life are paramount … national security has often been used to mask actions by our government which are immoral in their own right or support individuals/regimes which are blatantly oppressive and/or simply corrupt.
American policy toward the Soviet Union from 1945 through demise of its communist dictatorship was the most notable example of this philosophy. While it effectively ignored the plight of tens of millions of oppressed peoples behind the Iron Curtain, it did permit mankind to avoid the abyss of nuclear holocaust. For all but the most radical idealists, this trade-off was justifiable.
However, U.S. support for dozens of two-bit tyrants is unforgivable! Time and again, we threw unconditional support, together with billions of taxpayer’s dollars, behind men like Batista, Diem, Somoza and Iran’s Shah … none of whom had any commitment to basic human rights or civil liberties, nor did they have the support of their people. As each was predictable deposed America became the “great Satan” around which each new despot rallied his support.
A second justification for our foreign policy is economic. This belief holds that access to foreign resources, manpower, products, capital and technology as well as having markets in which to peddle our goods and services must take precedent. Large multinational corporations, all of whom (unlike most Americans) seem to have easy, if not unlimited access to the inner sanctums of the White House, Congress and the federal bureaucracy where foreign and trade policies are implemented, remain leading advocates of this school.
For years, the Sullivan Amendment was the framework permitting continued commerce with South Africa during a period when the dismantling of apartheid was still a distant dream. However, the proponents of an economic-based foreign policy successfully defended the position that only by a U.S. presence in South Africa could the “desired” social changes be influenced. They also argued America needed certain strategic raw materials for which South Africa was the only viable source.
Of more recent vintage is their support for President Bush’s military adventures to prevent any disruption in the flow of oil from the Middle East. Oh yes, Desert Storm also managed to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait in the process.
A third ideology maintains no nation can be a truly moral society if it is willing to turn its back on the immorality occurring beyond its borders. They point to hundreds of examples where U.S. support for tyrants and markets has not only failed to produce any long-term benefit for Americans, but has ultimately cost our country vast sums of money and, in some instances, American lives.
They also cite South Africa, where domestic pressure forced our government to enact economic sanctions until certain goals toward eliminating the racial policies of apartheid were met. Whether by coincidence or as a result of those (now eased) sanctions, all laws sanctioning racial separation in South Africa are now crumbling and its first true multi-party elections are scheduled.
At the same time, they justifiably lament the U.S. ignoring similar situations where large segments of a nation’s population are knowingly disenfranchised, as are women in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
As for extending MFN to China, Americans should consider such issues as China’s (a) lack of respect for the fundamental rights of its people; (b) continued willingness to transfer arms and sophisticated technology, including some relating to weapons of mass destruction, to international pariahs; (c) continued support of private enterprise, with the likelihood more economic freedoms will engender greater political freedoms; (d) efforts in supporting regional peace initiatives; (e) general support for most America’s UN initiatives, including Desert Storm; and (f) multi-billion dollar trade volume with the U.S.
They should then contact their Congressional representatives and write the White House. America is their nation and its foreign policy should be theirs … not that of vocal special interest groups.
And then, there is Bosnia …
