The English
Language
Discussion Club:
The Foreign Policy of the USA in the 21st Century
A regular meeting of the English Language Discussion Club was held on the 27th of April at Anglia British Bookshop in Moscow.Clearly, the Club is extremely popular with people of various walks of life. When the Discussion Club opens its doors, the second story of the bookstore is usually packed by more than a hundred people. The majority of those who come are regulars, but there are also newcomers brought there by their friends.
The gathering in question was no exception. Though the topic announced was rather complicated, it did not prevent a full house.
In the beginning, the chairman of the Club, Mr. Stephen Lapeyrouse, introduced his guest – Mr. Joseph Ferguson, the speaker of the evening. Joseph Ferguson, a Ph.D. candidate from Johns Hopkins University, is a Fulbright Fellow* and is presently working at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, doing research in Japanese-Russian relations.
While Mr. Ferguson was delivering his speech, the audience gave him their full attention. The evidence of true interest in the discussion was the great number of questions asked at the end of the talk.
Mr. Ferguson’s speech mainly touched upon the process of the evolution of American foreign policy, thus, the audience had a chance of making their own conclusions about the future.
Here is a short summary of the report presented by Mr. Ferguson.
Two significant events happened one hundred years ago at the dawn of the 20th century – the Spanish-American War and the Open Door Policy in China**. These two events were indicative of how US foreign policy was changing at the start of the 20th century.
These two milestones reveal two tendencies in American foreign policy: moralism and realism. It has not been infrequent that these two courses of policy go together. A case in point is the War of 1898, when the USA broke diplomatic relations with Spain and, as a result of the war, Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines became US possessions.
William McKinley, the US President at the time, acted in the interests of his own nation when war was declared. But apart from that, there was another objective, an idealistic one to civilize and “Christianize” the people of the Philippines. (They had already been Christianized.)
Mr. Ferguson claims, that moralism has always existed in the American mind. Obviously, one of the foremost tasks of a government is to keep the country safe from other states. But America, when it is prosperous and secure, stands sentinel over human rights issues and the spread of democracy.
The historical events, to which Mr. Ferguson turns, illustrate the fact that variation in American foreign policy from realism to moralism depends on the safety of the country – when there is a threat hanging over the USA, the international strategy is realistic, and, consequently, when there is no menace to the country’s well-being, moralism prevails. Going back to what has already been said, realistic ideas sometimes have an exterior of moralism.
During the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, America expanded her ideas of morality. As the domestic situation in America was secure, it became possible to exert the country’s powerful influence beyond its borders. The result of its influence was the Treaty of Portsmouth, mediated by T. Roosevelt, that ended the Russo-Japanese War.
Woodrow Wilson, whose concept developed into a doctrine of Wilsonianism, was a true idealist. World War I gave America the opportunity to expand its world role and spread its ideals. President Wilson used the Versailles Peace Treaty as his vehicle for introducing his famous “Fourteen Points”, which called for the establishment of democratic states and for the dismantlement of empires.
Of course, World War II influenced American foreign policy – making it very realistic. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were concerned about the survival of America, since Germany and Japan had an aim of conquering the whole world.
The Cold War began, and realistic ideas turned to be hidden behind the morality of the USA: President Harry Truman proposed economic and military aid to nations threatened by communism. In June 1947, US Secretary of State, George Marshal, prepared a plan for economic support to Europe.
National survival became a real question because of the threat of nuclear war.
In this period America supported Turkey and Greece, which were fighting civil wars against Communist forces. In the course of time a moralistic tendency developed, and when John F. Kennedy came to rule the country, he was seen as an idealist, but, nevertheless, elements of realism were still to be found in his politics, that was influenced by the missile crisis.
Richard Nixon, who became President after Lydon Johnson, carried out a very realistic policy. Nixon’s realism was highlighted by US-China rapprochement. This was aimed at creating a balance against the Soviet Union, whose rising power was seen as a threat to US interests, particularly in East Asia after the US withdrawal from Vietnam.
A follower of Wilson’s ideas, President Jimmy Carter, disguised realistic elements of his foreign policy by acting in the name of democracy and human rights; but upon closer examination it is clear, that the covert aim was to oppose the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan adhered to the same position: in reality the interests of America were defended, but they were represented as if they were for the world’s welfare. Thus, President Reagan supported freedom-fighters in Afghanistan and “Contras” in Nicaragua, but the basis of his politics preserved some elements of realism.
The situation changed and the policy swung back to moralism, when George Bush worked at his idealistic strategy of a “New World Order”. The realization of this was the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, when America is as confident as it was one hundred years ago (with a booming economy), Bill Clinton’s policy demonstrates further changes toward idealism. It is evident, that realism has always been present in the foreign policy of the USA, however deep it may be hidden under the surface of moralism. Changes for the worse in the Russian economy have caused a lessoning of tensions in American-Russian relations. Nowadays, the US Government tends to ignore Russia, and the opposition of the two countries is not so apparent as it used to be.
Just as there were two events at the dawn of the 20th century that demonstrated the direction of US foreign policy during the next few decades, Mr. Ferguson argues, that there have been two events at the dawn of the 21st century which may give clues as to how US foreign policy will evolve over the next few years. These events were the US intervention in Somalia and Kosovo.
The tendency towards moralism became overt in Somalia and Kosovo, where violations of human rights were so horrendous, that there was a decision for American humanitarian intervention. The Holocaust and Milosevic’s attempts to deport the entire Muslim population were treated by the USA as striking at the roots of civilization. Mr. Ferguson claims, it is very difficult to find any clear national interest in American participation in the conflict, or a threat to US national survival. The answer to the question why the USA did it, is the renewed influence of idealism and moralism in US foreign policy.
By way of conclusion, Mr. Ferguson remarked that though there are no insuperable disagreements in American-Russian relations, complications may follow, since the term of Bill Clinton as US President is coming to an end, and the next elected representative of the USA is most likely to change the American standpoint in this question.
* A Fulbright Fellowship is a grant awarded under the provisions of the US Congress, when funds (derived chiefly from the sale of US surplus property abroad) are made available to US citizens for study and research in foreign countries, as well as to foreigners to do similar activities in America.
** The Open Door Policy was the policy of the USA, when the US declared that no nation should be able to dominate China politically or economically. All nations should have equal access to China and her markets. And no nation should seek to dominate China politically.