The Crucial U.S. Foreign Policy Choice: Internationalism vs. Neocon Imperialism

I believe that the most important choice facing Americans today – for the 2008 elections and beyond – is the choice between international law and engagement with the world on the one hand, versus Neoconservative imperialism on the other hand.

A belief in the need for international law presupposes one of two things, or both of them: First, that all the peoples of the world deserve the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, as our founding document proclaims; and, that the absence of international law and order portends catastrophe for all nations of the world, including our own.

I strongly believe in both of those propositions. I believe in the second one for the same reason that I believe that we need police and courts of law within our own country: In the absence of effective international law, the “rule of the jungle” pertains to international relationships. Those with more power than their neighbors will have a tendency to bully and attack them in order to get what they want. That’s the way it has always been, since the dawn of human history. And that’s the way it will be for the foreseeable future, in the absence of effective international institutions and agreements to counteract that type of behavior. Wars have always been catastrophic. With today’s modern weaponry the world cannot afford another world war. And besides war, there are other major world-wide problems, such as global climate change and terrorism, which require a framework of international cooperation for their solution.

Furthermore, I adamantly reject the concept of “American exceptionalism” advocated by the Neocons, which claims that our country has the right to force the rest of the world to do our bidding because we are inherently Good or have a mandate from God to shape the world to our liking. The truth is that I don’t believe Americans are inherently better people than other peoples of the world. I do believe that we have a superior legal framework in our Constitution. But that’s all the more reason to honor our Constitution’s principles by working with the other nations of the world to solve our mutual problems.

My belief that all people have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is more difficult to put into words. Perhaps it has to do with empathy. Or perhaps it has to do with my belief that as long as that concept is not a driving force in international (and national) relationships and policies there will be no lasting peace in the world.

Our country took the lead towards establishing an international framework for peace and cooperation under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, beginning in 1941, with the creation of the Atlantic Charter, even before our entry into World War II. Sixty years later, with the onset of the Bush/Cheney administration, we completed a 180 degree turn, and we are now the greatest force in the world against international peace and cooperation. In the midst of this crucial period of U.S. history, Americans should compare the promises of FDR’s leadership with the current dismal state of our nation:


The beginnings of international law

It took two World Wars, a massive genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany, and two great leaders, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, to create the conditions for proceeding to establish a world order that would build upon the concept of human dignity, worth and rights proclaimed by our own Declaration of Independence.

In the midst of World War II, the leaders of the only two democracies that posed significant barriers to Hitler’s lust for unlimited power met in August 1941 to discuss how to meet the great threat facing them and the world. FDR and Churchill realized the importance of persuading the populations of their countries and other countries to enthusiastically endorse and support the effort to prevent Nazi tyranny from taking over the world. To those ends they realized that tough talk and threats were not sufficient or even desirable. Rather, they recognized the need to lay out a vision before the world that would clearly show the differences between them and their Fascist enemies. Thus, the Atlantic Charter of August 14, 1941, which announced the following principles:


Following the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny the victorious nations of the world, led by the United States, wasted little time in beginning to make the principles proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter into reality. The creation of the United Nations, conceptualized by FDR, was the beginning of that attempt. The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations annunciated the following purposes for its creation:



Neoconservate philosophy and policies

In stark contrast to FDR’s internationalist leadership, which (after ameliorating the worst effects of the Great Depression) led us to victory in World War II and won the respect of the nations of the world by conceptualizing the beginnings of a framework for international peace and cooperation, our country has for the past six years turned 180 degrees from that approach. Lets consider some examples of the Neoconservative approach to international relations in theory and practice:


Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

PNAC is the premier organization for the Neocons. Perhaps their most important document has been “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Many believe, with very good reason, that this document is a blueprint for the imperialistic ambitions of a small group of men who have dominated the Bush administration, and which risks plunging our nation into a catastrophic a world-wide war that could very well make World War II look tame by comparison.

The primary theme of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions. Why? Because we need to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”; we need to “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad”; without such a military we might lack the capability to maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”; and more specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East”.

And how are we to protect and defend all those interests? The document notes that “there are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it….” (those ungrateful evil doers!). Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…”

So it’s all about using our vastly superior weapons of mass destruction to protect American interests abroad. It’s their countries, but our interests. There is not the slightest indication anywhere in the document that suggests that people living in other countries have any rights when it comes to our interests.


George Bush’s imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq

When George W. Bush was selected by U.S. Supreme Court to be president of the United States, he filled his administration with Neocons from PNAC. He has faithfully followed their recommended policies ever since.

In 2003 he preemptively invaded a country which posed no threat to the United States, under a pretext which he clearly knew to be false, for the purpose of gaining access to Iraq’s natural resources for U.S. corporations. In four and a half years of war in Iraq, approximately a million Iraqi civilians have been killed, more than four million refugees have been created, and the infrastructure of their country has been destroyed. Yet, when Iraqis have taken up arms and fought against the U.S. occupation of their country, the Bush administration had the nerve to call them “terrorists” and to use the threat of “terrorism” as a primary excuse to continue to occupy their country. This is what L Paul Bremer, whom Bush appointed as the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, had to say about those Iraqis who dared to challenge his imperial authority:


And indeed we did capture and kill them, and torture them as well, though we still have yet to impose our imperial will upon their country.


The Bush administration’s contempt for international law

The Iraq War is just one example, though perhaps the most important, of many instances of contempt shown for international law by the administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney. There are plenty other examples:

The purpose of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is to prevent the most heinous of crimes that cannot or will not be addressed at the national level. Though President Clinton signed the Statute, George Bush announced in 2002 that he was unsigning it. And he has gone well beyond non-participation, to active sabotage. For example, the American Service members’ Protection Act authorizes the American President to “use all means necessary and appropriate” to release any American national who is “being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the ICC”; it prohibits all American cooperation with the ICC; it prohibits participation of American troops in UN peacekeeping operations unless they are granted complete immunity from the ICC; and it prohibits the U.S. from providing military assistance to any country that is a party to the ICC (with some exceptions).

Bush also pulled the United States out of its international commitment to the Kyoto protocol, leaving us and Australia as the only two industrialized countries uncommitted to the international effort to respond to the world-wide threat of global warming.

By designating his prisoners from his “War on Terror” as “unlawful enemy combatants”, thereby claiming the right to imprison them indefinitely without charge or trial or due process of law, George Bush clearly and repeatedly has violated the Geneva Conventions, to which his country has long been a signatory. And by having those prisoners tortured, he has repeatedly violated the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984.


Corporate news media whores – Tim Russert as a prime example

Many so-called “journalists” from our corporate news media contributed to George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq by accepting all his false claims about the threat from Iraq as Gospel, and failing to challenge any of those claims. Tim Russert is one of the worst offenders because somehow he has managed to portray himself as an unbiased and responsible journalist. Now he’s trying to beat the drums for going to war with Iran:

As a moderator for the Democratic candidate debates of September 26th, 2007, Russert tried to get Democratic candidates to commit themselves to committing a war crime by preemptively attacking Iran if it looks like Iran might acquire nuclear weapons. First Russert held up Rudy Giuliani as a model:


Russert then asked the Democratic candidates:


So Rudy Giuliani essentially promises that he will go to war if necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability, and Russert challenges the Democratic candidates to agree with that extreme, dangerous, and criminal position.

Yet all the Democratic candidates handled it quite well. Senator Obama’s response to Giuliani’s and Russert’s warmongering was typical: “I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.”

And Russert’s response to that was to put Obama’s responsible caution in the worst possible light, challenging him to equal Giuliani’s extremism:


But that wasn’t good enough for Russert. He was right back at it a month later, at the October 30th Democratic debates:



The bottom line

The Bush/Cheney administration’s imperialistic policies and contempt for international law portend catastrophe for the world and for our country. Its disastrous policies have greatly weakened us militarily by getting us bogged down in a purposeless war; and they have simultaneously weakened our moral authority by engendering the hatred of much of the world and the disrespect of the rest of it. Furthermore, these policies do not make for a sustainable world. They will inevitably destroy our planet, either by means of World War III, or through accelerating environmental degradation, or both.

The world cannot and will not long stand for this. I, for one, hope that it won’t. I would rather see my country resisted and humbled by the rest of the word than see it continue on its bullying and imperialistic course. The only ones who stand to profit from continuation of our current course are the Bush administration’s corporate cronies. It would spell catastrophe for the rest of the world.

Oona Hathaway, writing for The Nation, had this to say about the Bush administration’s present course:

Welcome to DU aragon :toast:

I can only attest that for me as well, this is THE issue. At the moment of "with us or against us", and later during the illegal invasion, I was flabbergasted. This has made America lose a lot if not all standing in the world. And in a world where currencies are essentially based on "trust", this is extremely undermining the US economy, especially in the long term.

The very idea of dictating that other countries can or cannot possess this or that while entertaining a disgusting war budget is hypocritical at best.

Rejecting the ICC, granting immunity to all in Iraq especially the mercenaries...I get sick of that.

It also bothers me that somehow, in the west, after all those years, the Iraq war for oil has become a "given", it is almost never discussed here anymore. I fear that "they are fighting for our oil too" is a part of that and I hate that.

Based on your OP, who do you think are appropriate candidates? To me, that would be DK, Gore, Feingold, those that voted against Kyl-Lieberman have also tried to put a stop to imperialist thinking.

Unfortunately, I think the lack of education and the "we are the best"-mentality are deeply ingrained and are the basis on which imperialist thinking can thrive.

You bring up some very good points that I neglected to mention in my OP.

I plan to vote for Kucinich. Feingold is definitely not running. I think he would be a terrific president, though I am afraid that, like Kucinich, he would not have much of a chance of winning. Maybe 2012 or 2016. Gore also would be very good, though he has not declared his candidacy either. I'm afraid that the only chance he has is if the Democratic convention is unable to settle on any of the current candidates.

Of those who have declared and seem to have a reasonable chance of winning, I prefer Edwards. It does bother me that he voted for the IWR, but I do believe that he has changed considerably since then. I think he would make an excellent president too.

Most likely Clinton will be the nominee IMO. She has tried hard to position herself towards the center, and has consequently been very vague on most of her positions. I would not be excited about her candidacy, but I would definitely vote for her against any of the Republicans. I am hopeful that she would make a better president than what her current rhetoric suggests. Many of our presidents have turned out to be so -- most notably Lincoln and Kennedy. I assume that she would govern much like her husband. That wouldn't be too bad, but I think that our country needs a more liberal president at this time.

In other words, the purpose of diplomacy, in his view, is to ram our opinions down the throats of other countries and make clear that if they don't do what we want them to do they must suffer the consequences. What a dangerous idea of diplomacy for an American President! -- essentially the same idea of diplomacy that is currently held by Bush and Cheney.

one more so than the other, but... the other side is simply creepy.

Why is it that great but lengthy posts like yours drop so soon? These are always the one I bookmark, DU has a small but active cadre of people really "in the know" and they (and you) are a treasure..

:shrug: