Foreign Policy with Limited Means
by Joseph Rowlands
Life is full of possible values to pursue, always restricted by a limitation on means. We always have to search for ways to take those limited means and get as much value with them as we can. The same is true in foreign policy. While it would be nice to have unlimited ability to pursue your goals, we have to live with real constraints.
If you accept that your means are limited, what can you do about it? If you have limited means, there are three ways to maximize the results of your efforts. You can attempt to better utilize your existing means, getting the most you can out of it. You can strive to increase your means beyond their existing limits, increasing your total possibilities. And the third way is to remove some of your needs for these limited means. While these methods are applicable in any situation with limited means, we can apply them specifically to foreign policy.
The first method is to maximize the results with the given, limited means. This can be applied in a couple ways. The first is to prioritize your efforts. For instance, there may be several countries that promote or support terrorism, or are otherwise a threat to the US or US interests. Limited means requires us to choose who to respond to, or if we'd rather keep our limited means available for some unexpected threat. If a response was chosen, prioritizing would mean selecting the target with the best payoff. This criteria could be complex, ranging from eliminating the biggest threat, to picking a target that would dissuade other aggressors, to picking a lighter threat that's easier to deal with.
Another way to stretch the use of limited means in foreign policy is to deal with problems before they get too big. It's well recognized that in the field of medicine, preventative care is much less expensive then waiting for catastrophic events. The same principle can be applied in foreign policy. When a nation becomes hostile and belligerent, they can be responded to before they've become very dangerous.
Contrast this with the belief that we should only respond when a country becomes a serious threat to the US, possibly even launching an attack. Instead of dealing with a problem when it's minor, the intent is to wait until the threat becomes deadly. "Clear and present danger" is a common phrase here. Instead of efficient utilization of limited means, this would be utilizing those means in the least efficient way, when your choices are the most limited.
The second method of working around limited means is to increase those means. In foreign policy, one clear example is forming alliances. Just as we form governments with like-minded people to oppose domestic violence, we can form alliances with like-minded governments to oppose foreign violence. By allying with others, we increase are otherwise limited means.
Of course, alliances are looked down upon by many. Those who believe in the Omnipotence Premise don't think we need them. They only can make sense when you grasp the idea of limited means, as this is the benefit of having an alliance. Of course, there can be downsides too. George Washington warned against entangling alliances (while happily accepting an alliance with France in the Revolutionary War). But there was context to his warnings. The Old World was full of monarchies, warring with one another for glory and profit. An alliance there meant plunging into wars that weren't in our interests. But that's only one kind of alliance. The reasons for Washington's warnings are not applicable in every situation.
Another kind of alliance pits the civilized world against the despots, religious fanatics, and socialists dictators. The alliances don't have to drag you into petty squabbles between equally belligerent nations. It can be an alliance where you strengthen your position by joining with other like-minded, peaceful nations, increasing your limited means to respond to threats in the world.
There is another way to increase your limited means. This is the policy of supporting the lesser evil over the greater evil. Short-term alliances of convenience, like allying with the Soviet Union during World War II, are an effective way of reaching beyond the limited means. While these certainly have different concerns than the alliances between free nations, it does work in practice which is why it's been used in the past. Again it may be popular to discard these practices as immoral, the fact is that it is the limited means that create the need to pursue these unsavory, but sometimes necessary, courses of action.
The third and final method of working around a limited means is to remove the needs for these limited means. In foreign policy, this means promoting freedom and rationality among nations, and working towards a world where violent regimes are rare or non-existent. This method is the most forward looking.
One of the initial assumptions with the limited means argument for foreign policy is that there are far more threats out there than we can deal with. In domestic affairs, criminals are so rare and so outnumbered that we can work to hunt them down and we rarely have to accept their presence. In the international context, we currently have to accept that much of the world is violent and hostile. We have to accept their presence and their continued threat.
This third method involves actively pursuing a world where this is not the case. It means supporting freedom loving countries, and standing up to tyranny. It could mean drawing a line, and making sure things don't get worse. And when the limited means are not so stretched, drawing a line a little closer to a peaceful world, continuing this process as opportunities allow.
This process would recognize that our real long term interest is not to have tyrannies and fanatics out there at all. It would recognize that there is a harmony of interests between rational men, and between rational, free nations. It would recognize that it is not in our interest to live side by side with murderers and thugs. It would recognize that allowing free nations to fall to tyrants is a step backwards for our own security. It would recognize that a step forward for liberty in the world is a step forward for all of us.
Instead of this approach contradicting the idea of limited means, it is a deeper recognition of that fact.
Discuss this Article (19 messages)
|
