The Business of America is ... Business

.
Ehud Barak, and perhaps many others around the world, wonder about America's recent foreign policy. Is it accidental or planned, amateurish or sophisticated?

He said we established a kind of world order with stability in which everyone could do business and that recently we abandoned the leaders who kept that in place, in favor of peoples. I believe that is a slight misinterpretation, though sensible observation, of the foreign policy of America.

Consider that after World War I our president Woodrow Wilson wanted to establish an international organization which would enable diplomacy to reign and wars to end. Was that out of the goodness of his heart or self-interest for America? After World War II America implemented the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe. During the Cold War we utilized détente to keep the peace and the use of diplomacy to work toward a lasting peace. Was that for national glory or just to establish a stability for business? Why did America support Mubarak in Egypt for decades? Was it to have stability for business sake? How much business did we do with Egypt?

I believe America's vision in the area of foreign policy has always been a reflection of America itself. Our leaders have always had in mind commerce and an expansion of that to the world. But, we have also had an idealism in the area of human rights (here we call it 'civil rights') which is embedded in our Constitution and the spirit of the people to be free of European monarchy and wars. We sometimes preach about such things and forget our own excesses, but we are always reaching for the ideal when it comes to civil/human rights.

Thus, our policy has been to establish stability for business, to use diplomacy to spread the good news that our economic system, in league with the Western Europeans, was a great thing everyone should give a try. A very big part of our support for commerce is that it serves our material needs AND it gives us freedom to develop our individual interests and abilities. That's where the recent view that developments in China needn't begin with political revolution, but that if economic development leads to greater personal freedom and economic power for the populace that the country will eventually evolve to become benign, free, wealthier and happier in the world; that would also make us safer and more prosperous. Peace and prosperity can go hand-in-hand.

So, we did indeed support Mubarak for a long time, but it wasn't paying dividends for the Egyptian people beyond having time to develop their economy. Well, that time wasn't especially well-used, so it was time for another step forward. The people recognized that and so it began. That this time is full of conflict and confusion isn't surprising, but it doesn't mean America 'abandoned' the Egyptian people. It just means change is hard.

Have we 'abandoned' the Syrian people? We support their hopes to be free and prosperous, but it's hard in the middle of a civil war to recognize the secular Syrian groups we could trust to take power and those who are (in our opinion) dangerous. Thus, we are hesitant to step in to depose al Assad. We also have fewer natural national interests than we would usually hope for when involved overseas. The American public really isn't interested in an activist foreign policy just now and our government's budget isn't full of spare money for that.

However, when chemical weapons were used we had a different issue, and one which related directly to American interests. Any country which was involved or saw what happened in World War I or the Iraq-Iran wars knows chemical weapons should be banned from existence. We are seeking to eliminate the ones in Syria to keep everyone safe from them. This is self-interest and an interest in the people of the region and of seeking a new order for Syria where the people are not slaughtered by their own government. It's messy, as change often is.

Fortunately, this process has also shown the president was right during his recent election campaign when he disagreed with his competitor who said Russia was one main foreign opponent. It's shown now, as Ehud Barak recently said, that Putin and the Russians have national interests and they can be dealt with through normal diplomatic relations. The same has been true of China. This should renew the trust people have their leaders know how to advance our policy goals and that the world can be a place where people work together to achieve goals.

I think American foreign policy has been remarkably consistent as it is based on the very soul of the American people. This is naturally not the easiest thing for other peoples to grasp. I suppose the key thing to consider is that America is a place which has very high ideals and goals and we don't fear change (at least not all the time) to achieve a lot of things we want. That makes us 'leaders' and sometimes 'sanctimonious preachers'. It certainly makes us exceptional, for good or ill.

One other thing which I've noticed has been very confusing to the world is how our current president has managed the foreign policy with great respect for the limits of our Constitution and simple interests and domestic politics. This adds a layer of confusion here at home and I can only imagine foreigners being utterly frustrated with us. Some of our presidents haven't always worked this way and often our Congress has rubber-stamped the presidents plans. But, today we have great political division in the country, or at least in Washington, and ensuring we have a large degree of assent on foreign policy is essential -- even when it leaves everyone else confused.

My only suggestion to friends abroad is to talk with us and work with us on common interests. It's easier than trying to read between the lines or consulting a spiritual guide.