For U.S. Foreign Policy, Self-Interest Is Morality
February 15, 2008
By Patrick James
Where should American foreign policy go next? One idea is to move away from the Bush administration’s emphasis on preemptive warfare in particular, and the use of force in general, to deal with the world’s problems. Such a shift would be understandable, given the huge economic costs from fighting two wars on the other side of the world.
However, it isn’t just important which way U.S. foreign policy shifts; it’s the motivation for movement. Critics who call for an emphasis on human rights, human security or other high-sounding principles aren’t thinking far enough ahead. Instead, the way forward is a pragmatic building upon the opportunities created by the wars that, for better or worse, are already in progress. This involves identifying the opportunities and pursuing them on the basis of self-interest rather than abstract moral principles.
As will become apparent, this approach will create the greatest good for the most people over the longest period of time.
Why not a politics of morality? The general answer is that — with rare exceptions — it isn’t obvious what actions are morally right or wrong at the time they occur. Soviet-imposed dictatorship and South African apartheid look very bad today; yet people of good will differed for decades on what precisely to do about them. No evidence exists that the best policies will come out of any particular moral frame of reference, be it religious, secular progressive or something else. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Consider, for example, the lessons to be learned from the Carter administration’s emphasis on human rights in foreign policy. One could ask just how much this policy did to produce more human rights. Remember Iran, the test case for the Carter team’s new way of doing things? Three decades later, we face a leader who is attempting to dismantle nascent democracy while announcing that his country is free from homosexuality. We might mention that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to talk about weapons of mass destruction as well. Of course, the Carter administration has been gone for a long time, but its petulant shift from political realism to idealism ended up producing less in the way of human rights for Iranians than virtually anything that might have been considered. The best long-term results in terms of either the national interest or moral standing are unlikely to come about through a foreign policy grounded in idealism.
The path toward human freedom is best pursued by pragmatically making the most of the opportunities that come along, rather than trying to figure out the “right” thing to do. Was the Iraq war a good idea? The only sensible answer to give right now is: “Who knows?” It could be decades before the impact of this war is appreciated. What we can do now is calculate its likely effect on other pressing problems and make the most of things from the standpoint of America’s national interest.
Consider Iran once again. Attacking it, even in the face of a major provocation from Ahmadinejad, would be a mistake. The reason? America’s willingness to pay a huge price to “get tough” with its enemies is established quite credibly by the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. A restrained approach toward the would-be dictator of Iran is in order, since his own people are likely to do our work for us. Every scrap of evidence suggests that Ahmadinejad’s last trump card is to rally support behind him against the Americans. So what if the Americans refuse to play his game, as with the non-response to the staged incident in the Strait of Hormuz? His situation gets worse. In short, only the U.S. can rescue him... and why would it want to do so? Ill-conceived arguments about protecting democracy and human rights might call for deposing Ahmadinejad by force, but this would not be in the national interest.
The Iran example illustrates a greater point, that the use of force versus other tactics to advance U.S. interests is a matter of circumstance, not an all-or-nothing proposition. The hard left argues against every use of military force because it is blinded by self-proclaimed morality. The hard right ends up making the same policy recommendations out of a belief in the value of isolationism — the same cynical, bad advice it offered in the 1930s. Neither idealism nor cynicism can provide the basis for an effective foreign policy.
America needs to be engaged with the world. How should that take place? Evidence points away from force and toward patience with Iran, because time is on the side of positive change in that country. This is a different approach than the one taken with Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is exactly what the circumstances call for.
Patrick James is professor of International Relations in the USC College and director of USC’s Center for International Studies. He is an expert on foreign policy, national security, crisis management, the causes of war and strategic decision-making. James is the author of 12 books and more than one hundred other publications. He has lectured and held visiting professorships at universities in the United States and around the world.