Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Great US Foreign Policy Flaw
By failing to recognize why national self-determination is important, the US hinders global economic and social progress
Of all the misunderstandings that guide US foreign policy – including foreign commercial policy – perhaps the most important and long-lasting is the failure to recognize or understand what national self-determination means to most people in the world. Or why it might be important to them. Our leaders seem to have learned very little since their disastrous war in Vietnam, which ended 35 years ago.
The cynical would say that America's leaders do understand these things, but don't care. However that would not explain why President Obama would go to Afghanistan and humiliate President Karzai, in a way that was sure to alienate the government that Washington wants to work with, and its supporters.
Karzai reacted angrily: "In this situation there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance," he said last week. He also warned that the insurgency "could become a national resistance."
Of course, Washington's problem with the Afghan government does not really have so much to do with corruption, as Obama lectured Karzai about – just look at the billions of dollars that the US government continues to slather on corrupt governments all over the world, from Pakistan to Colombia. It is more that Karzai wants to negotiate a peace agreement with the Taliban insurgents, while Washington – especially the Pentagon – wants to pull off something it can claim as a "military victory" before that happens. It remains to be seen how many people, including civilians, will die needlessly before the Afghan government's preferred strategy of negotiations is allowed.
But the problem is much more general and extends to US foreign policy throughout the world. Washington claims to support "democracy", but democracy without self-determination is a very limited form of democracy. It is a great irony that Latin America, for example, had more self-determination in the realm of economic policy from 1950 to 1980, when much of the region lived under dictatorships, than it had after formal democracy became widespread. Not surprisingly, the region's economy grew enormously faster between 1950 and 1980 than it has in the last 30 years, when "Washington consensus" economic policies became the norm.
Fortunately the Latin American electorate did not conclude from this experience that dictatorship was better than democracy. Instead, over the last decade they decided that they needed more democracy, the kind that includes national self-determination and economic policy making that benefits their own countries and also the majority of their citizens. Bolivia took control over some of its most important natural resources – especially hydrocarbons – and now has an extra 20% of GDP that the government has been able to spend for economic and social development. (For comparison, 20% of GDP is the average amount of the entire federal budget in the United States over the last 40 years). Bolivia also now has an independent foreign policy, where it can play a leading role on issues of great importance to the country, such as climate change.
In 2001 Argentina defaulted on its massive foreign debt and changed its economic policies, getting rid of the Washington-controlled IMF in the process. There is no question that they were also better off for this move, with the economy growing 63% in the ensuing six years. Venezuela is another example of a government that was able to grow very rapidly after getting control over its national oil industry in 2003, and to greatly expand access to health care and education. It has also used its oil wealth to help other countries in the hemisphere (including the poorest, Haiti, where it has apparently pledged more money than the US government for relief and reconstruction; and the richest, the United States, where it has donated tens of millions of dollars annually in the form of discounted heating oil to low-income Americans). Ecuador's left, nationalist government has doubled spending on healthcare, got rid of a third of its foreign debt through default, and has refused to cave to US pressure on the multi-billion lawsuit of Ecuadorians against oil giant Chevron for pollution of ground waters. There are numerous other examples that could be cited from "pink tide" governments that now govern most of Latin America.
Of course, national self-determination also matters in countries that do not have democratic governments. China has had the fastest-growing economy in world history over the last three decades, pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty despite widening inequality. As economists Nancy Birdsall, Dani Rodrik, and Arvind Subramanian have noted, this would not have happened (pdf) if China had pursued "a garden-variety World Bank structural adjustment program in 1978 instead of its own brand of heterodox gradualism."
And Vietnam, another country ruled by a communist party, has also had one of the world's fastest growing economies since it got rid of the American troops 35 years ago. Over the past three decades its income per person has more than quadrupled.
The hope is that these countries will become more democratic as they increase their living standards and education. But in any case they still illustrate one of the reasons – which is not intelligible to most of Washington – why people might care so much about national self-determination.
By facing off squarely against one of the most important political forces of the 20th and 21st centuries, Washington is not only placing itself on the wrong side of history. It is guaranteeing that the United States will be involved in any number of "long wars", indefinitely, and generally slowing the pace of economic and social progress in the world.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with Mark Weisbrot that national self-determination is important and our foreign policy should be based on respect for it, but is the problem really a "failure to recognise or understand what national self-determination means to most people in the world, or why it might be important to them"?
If our leaders could only be brought around to understanding that self-determination is important to most people in the world, would they then begin to respect it?
If so, then the problem is not imperialism; it is a perceptual error, a simple misunderstanding.
Is that really the case? Have those of us who have been complaining about imperialism been barking up the wrong tree all these years? And that what we really should be doing is engaging in an intensive campaign to educate our leaders about the high value that foreigners place on self-determination?
For the record, I for my part do not think that is the problem of our political leaders. Our political leaders are committed to imperialism and it doesn't make much difference whether they "understand" the aspirations of foreign peoples or not. I do however think that our intellectual class - journalists, academics, researchers for human rights and "civil society" NGOs, pundits and diplomats of various kinds - do in fact suffer from a failure to understand the extent to which foreigners value self-determination. They tend to focus excessively on traditional Anglo-Saxon (or "bourgeois") individual liberties: freedom of speech, the press, religion, the right to due process, etc. Those are important things, but their narrow focus on those things tends to blind them to the possibility that other things may be important to people in other countries as well, such as the right to be free of foreign domination and interference, the right to social equality and the right for the sovereignty of one's state to be respected - even if that state is not necessarily a democratic one.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Mark:
"If our leaders could only be brought around to understanding that self-determination is important to most people in the world, would they then begin to respect it?"
"Our Leaders" are NOT really leaders at all...They are mostly greedy, self serving individuals of low moral fibre who are selected for political office by very wealthy men to carry out A business agenda that has nothing to do with the will of the people. There is the rare case as that of "John Kennedy" who had the financial backing and the wealth to follow his own convictions but this is rare indeed.
People of this persuation can never be "Brought around" to understand any thing other than the orders they receive from their Corporate/Industrial/Banker masters and the only thing they "begin to respect" is the certainty of re-election if they are good little boys..
Off the top of my head I can only think of about 10 congressmen who think they are in office to represent the people. The rest owe their convictions to the masters who bought them political office and are laughing all the way to the bank.....
You don't have to convince me, stubones49. I was asking the question rhetorically.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Being involved in a number of "long wars", indefinitely, and slowing the pace of economic and social progress in the world has been the specific foreign policy of the US for decades, it's been successful for war profiteers and the ruling elite, so there's no flaw. This article is what's flawed.
Right on! While self styled US liberals may prefer Obama's passive-aggressive style over Dubya's demeanor, both Presidents' mission is to assure uninterrupted revenue streams for the miltary industrial media complex.
Mission accomplished !
Excellent post. I've always attributed the US foreign policy of "might makes right" to either the idea of American exceptionalism (which is a religiously based notion), and/or specific policy decisions that were made right after WW2, when most other nations were down for the count.
What are your thoughts? And if the latter, does anybody have any good references to learn more about post-ww2 policy making along these lines?
One can quibble over the use of "flaw", which in any case only appears in the headline and not in the article-- chances are the author didn't compose the headline.
Also, a "great" flaw may be a variation of the "fatal flaw" concept of myth and legend, wherein an Achilles' Heel or a chink in armor may be a seemingly-harmless or inconsequential fault that affects a vast outcome. "For want of a nail..."
All THAT said, for the reasons stated in your comment, the headline would have been fine with the substitution of a more appropriate F-word:
"The Great US Foreign Policy Fraud"
Political theatre is loaded with faux flaws and "human error". Flaws and human error are the only way politicians can excuse the outcomes of their premeditated criminal actions.
--"the piece's timidity is immensely annoying."
I agree totally. He seems almost apologetic in pointing out the truth !
"Washington claims to support "democracy", but democracy without self-determination is a very limited form of democracy."
So is "democracy" without actual representation in the halls of power. USA Incorporated is merely exporting the same false "democracy" that it has successfully installed at home.
Sometimes the export and marketing processes require a little "friendly persuasion" by the corporation's military subsidiary, but only the world's radical nationalists and silly sovereigntists could possibly object to that. Ingrates!
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
I wonder why what my comment violated?
Maybe because it was in CAPS? or the comment itself?
anyway:
why would it be surprising that the USA 's foreign policy is what it is?
Start with the Domestic - with the Native Indians. what was done to them? in order to "build the shining city on the hill"
--- "EXTERMINATION" -- THomas Jefferson's OWN words.
AFricans ? Kidnapping, Shipped across the oceans, Enslavement, Separate and unequal (still is for the lot , among others of "non-anglo-saxon/european white")
if anyone thinks this is UNconnected and inherent in the USA foreign policy....
which countries has the USA bombed, invaded and undermined for its Land, Resource, Cheap Labor Thievery?
usually Brown , dark skinned folks' lands.
GENERAL SMedley Butler, US Marines:
":OUR FOREIGN POLICY has always been geared towards gathering as much of the world's resources unto ourselves..at the expense of others...the true purpose of our armed forces is to make the world safe for our BIG BOSS: our supernationalistic Capitalism and our Cultural and Economic Assault...we are a Nation of War and Money Racketeers...what we do is EVIL".
JOHN PERKINS, former CIA "Economic Hitman":
"what most americans do not really understand or admit is: we are living our lifestyle ONLY Because it is part of a very, very vicious system of exploitation that Dehumanizes and Enslaves People EVERYWHERE".
from Domestic Policy that "built" the USA - EXtermination and Theft from the native indians...and dehumanizing of them and of the Africans to enslave them...to spreading itself with more thievery across the continent right up to the mexicans. and across the seas - in asia, in africa, in the middle east, in south america.......
that is the character of the USA "policy".
what is that as history teaches that the USA often cites OTHERS as being guilty of doing?
that is called EVIL.
\
I didn't make that up - General Smedley Butler attested to it, from First Person Narrative.
i hope that's a truth that Commondreams will tolerate?...
0bama might like cooperation, but shows faith in obedience.
Call me cynical, but the acquiescence that follows dragontooth bombs, hunter-killer droids, drifting uranium dust, is resignation or the biding of time, not cooperation.
Whatever selective blindnesses 0bama may have, it is unlikely that he is unaware that he is using force.
The complexity of human intent and selective unconscious may not support simple accusations of purposeful action in these tragedies, but it certainly does not support the broad pretense of objectivity or cautious professionalism among journalists or pundits in situations who pretend that overwhelming signs of conscious and aware malice exist in the ongoing fraud and mass murder committed by US administrations.
Say what??? Unintelligible self-contradictory drivel. I think.
The USA by and large is a lost soul of a nation and has been that way ever since its inception. That said, other nations cannot afford to play follow the USA all the time. I am very proud of a number of Latin American nations for standing up and refusing to allow this lost soul of a nation any chances of dragging them into the netherworld. I can only hope that more nations will follow so that in the forseeable future, the USA can truly discover its soul regardless of whether it was lost or never there to begin with.
Ensuring that the USA is never exposed to any soul finding influences from abroad is what the "full spectrum dominance" aspect of USA Incorporated's "globalization" is all about. Frankly, considering the scope and influential impacts of corporate successes at home, I sometimes think it's a grossly exaggerated worry.
On the other hand, whereas the domestic enconomy appears incresingly shaky, a properly "democratized" export market seems to offer many lucrative opportunities. Those pesky Latin American "radical populists" had better not get too uppity. They should know by now that USA Inc. means it when it insists on its own version of "freedom and democracy" as the only acceptable brand throughout the hemisphere.
"Those pesky Latin American "radical populists" had better not get too uppity. They should know by now that USA Inc. means it when it insists on its own version of "freedom and democracy" as the only acceptable brand throughout the hemisphere."
They can't possibly get too uppity. In fact, I would recommend that the Latin nations exporting oil to the US cut off the supplies and save their own environment from destruction.
Not to worry. I'm sure the number one foreign supplier (Canada, not any Middle Eastern or Latin American nation) can be "persuaded" to make up any shortfall. The U.S. can ignore NAFTA rulings at its pleasure, but others aren't permitted such sovereign discretion.
Then I shall add Canada to the list of must cut-offs as well. As it is, they cannot possibly make up any shortfalls if they're aiming for heavy sour crude oil which is a desperate move. They could legally grow a lot of hemp for hemp seed oil and export it as fuel to the USA. You're right about NAFTA.
I'm so glad others already commented that this "flaw" in not "understand what national self-determination means to most people in the world," is actually an intentional embracing of Imperialism.
Call me cynical. Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he went to Afghanistan. He was letting Karzai know he could be the next Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnam Leader the CIA got rid of in the early 60s in a military coup. Imperialism put him in power; Imperialism can just as easily take him down.
Mark Weisbrot is an ignoramus of the usual bourgeois reformist sort inasmuch as he does not realize that (a) the USA is an imperialist nation bent on global domination by any means necessary, a domination inspired by capitalist imperatives; and (b) empire is by definition incompatible with the self-determination of its subjects.
The problem is no "misunderstanding," as Weisbrot characterizes it. The problem is that Weisbrot et al. do not understand the system that they presume to advise.
If he were a physician, Weisbrot would describe the lethality of cancer as a "misunderstanding" that listening to him could clear up. Undoubtedly he'd get featured on reformist websites, since it is a lot easier to talk confidently in the face of evil than to admit the awful truth.
"... empire is by definition incompatible with the self-determination of its subjects."
Bingo!
That such an obviously inherent characteristic of imperial power and its attandant geopolitical policies could be described as a "flaw" is almost beyond belief, even for an apologist.
Absolutely! Underpinning all these is that little word, "Profit". Capitalism cannot survive without profit. In the persistent pursuit of the goal of "Profit" all spectrum domination is an ever present and irreplaceable necessity. Of course military force is just one of the ways. You can try fraud using the IMF or the World Bank or creating "puppet governments".
Capitalism survives on Profits and Profits comes not just from the exploitation of Labour but of everything else. According to the theories behind Capitalism progress can ONLY be achieved by the accumulation of capitals in the hand of capitalists, the only ones fit to decide what to do with it.
ALL GOVERNMENTS -- SLAVERY BY 51% MOST WEALTHY
An intelligence dictatorship actually, where the 51% most
intelligent and wealthy have terrific homes, great jobs,
good 401k plans invested in a defense economy and healthcare
only they can afford.
Ana they are Jews.
"Ana" you are an idiot.
Do you really believe that 51% of those who vote fall into this category you create? There are approx 217.8 million eligible voters in this nation, approx. 60% of whom turned out for the last national election. If all those folks are , as you infer, are of the middle class or higher, then all the demographics I have ever read are wrong. Further, there are about 46 million of us without health care, not anywhere near 49%, so your numbers don't add up at all.
we must understand that there is no such thing as foreign policy. foreign policy is projected domestic policy. until our domestic policy changes our foreign policy will continue to be a projection of a domestic policy based upon three things: access to fossil fuels (if they are cheap so much the better but that really doesn't matter), open markets for u.s. companies to sell and more importantly make products with cheap labor and the willingness to utilize military force to ensure the first two.
it must be this way. without fundamental change within the u.s. our foreign policy cannot change. any changes that may occur will be simply cosmetic in nature without radical reconstruction. our economy is based upon more=better as mckibben pointed out and has at its very foundation fossil fuels. since we lack the reserves to continue such an economy we must seek those fossil fuels from outside the u.s. on a continually expanding basis. because of the fact that fossil fuels are more and more in the hands and under the ground or sea of nations that are distrustful of the u.s. at a minimum or openly hostile we are forced more and more to rely on a militarized projected domestic policy. we will obtain these fossil fuels no matter the human cost to those who have them or to our soldiers. this does not even take into account the affects of terrorism upon fossil fuel infrastructure in many nations especially if those nations engage in dealings with the u.s. that terrorists deem diametrically opposed to some particular agenda.
when peak oil and natural gas are thrown into the mix our course not only becomes clear it becomes a course of no other alternative. we must develop alternative energy sources as well as engage in an abandonment of the deathstyle (hyper suburbanization and sprawl) in favor of smaller, closer-knit communities. mass transportation must be developed. large scale organic local farming must occur. the pervasiveness of fossil fuels in all of our lives and every aspect of our lives will make the changes we must move forward with very painful. but move forward we must for ourselves and more critically for future people. those last two words were deliberately chosen for it is not just for our children but all people.
Almost every powerful man in Afghanistan is powerful, has gunmen, because he is a local opium warlord. President Obama is shoulder to shoulder in the above picture next to a drug lord.
The great U.S. foreign policy flaw is the assumption that the little people can be killed, robbed, starved or addicted with impunity, and somehow that behavior is good for average American citizens.
Morally, this isn't what the U.S. should stand for. We should stand for democracy, for a transparent government, for a press dedicated to the citizens' will, and for honest elections. Of course we don't have much of that ourselves. The Bible that Congresspeople swear on is laced with references to Moses leading the slaves to freedom, to corrupt rich people in cahoots with military oppressors, and to reading the Law every Sabbath to all citizens so that not even the king can be above the Law. We don't have much of that either these days, except the part about the rich people.
Ethically we should stand for citizen government worldwide because such a stance makes our country non-threatening, and then sane countries don't arm themselves against us, while the insane countries are mostly fighting for survival against their own citizens who we just empowered. At that point we can cheap out on our military needs, feed our people, stop global wierding and have money left over for many wants and needs.
"The hope is that these countries will become more democratic as they increase their living standards and education"
There seems to be a flaw in the logic of this statement that reeks of exceptionalism and condescension.
China is a backward country? The same China that invented most of the Western "inventions" a couple of centuries before the West? The same China that makes most of the products we buy? Really? Try learning Mandarin and script.
I don't think you can call the USA a democracy when there's little choice in government -since the vote is manipulated by money, corporations and the MIC, and, whatever the result, the Pentagon/MIC still dominates and controls, aided by the stenographic MSM. The Pentagon is a full time warrior that invents wars if it can't find any.
Let's be quite clear, the ordinary American has no say whatsoever in US foreign policy.
The US and many other Western countries are in dire need of another Renaissance, particularly in the Humanities.
Mark:
"If our leaders could only be brought around to understanding that self-determination is important to most people in the world, would they then begin to respect it?"
"Our Leaders" are NOT really leaders at all...They are mostly greedy, self serving individuals of low moral fibre who are selected for political office by very wealthy men to carry out A business agenda that has nothing to do with the will of the people. There is the rare case as that of "John Kennedy" who had the financial backing and the wealth to follow his own convictions but this is rare indeed.
People of this persuation can never be "Brought around" to understand any thing other than the orders they receive from their Corporate/Industrial/Banker masters and the only thing they "begin to respect" is the certainty of re-election if they are good little boys..
Off the top of my head I can only think of about 10 congressmen who think they are in office to represent the people. The rest owe their convictions to the masters who bought them political office and are laughing all the way to the bank.....
I'm not sure of the exact date when democracy died, but we are, it seems, living in a plutocracy now.
Like Pluto, that was excised out of our universe, into a "dwarf planet," it seems that the United States policy is heading in the same direction.
A person, like a nation can only be a bully for so long; after that...well, we all know what happens.The little guys, or nations will band together, and we too will be excised into our own sad orbit wondering what might have been.
"By failing to recognize why national self-determination is important, the US hinders global economic and social progress"
Fair statement.
At bottom, underneath the military madness and the paranoid fear of losing control, it's simply a misconception of what works well which holds the US in its quest for global dominance.
So often one can look at statements and endeavours from the political-economic elite and think: "Relax, man - drop the paranoia and let everyone enjoy life, including yourself."
There's a great global competition for energy and resources going on, decaying into war in many places. But who needs this much use of energy and resources anyway? - Life can be much better with much lower consumption than US and the globalized West traps ourselves in.
Simplicity is enjoyable. Downscaling makes happy.
Concrete-asphalt environments with sorry patches of soil for nature creates need of intoxicants and artificial stimulants just to reach a normal natural level of daily stimuli. When people are self-determined, free of artificial economic pressures, we tend to choose nature for surroundings. Lack of natural environments and their unregulated wilderness creates "Nature Deficit Disorder" - NDD.
People living ensconced in cities are basically insane on a deeply organic level. And now over 50 % of humanity lives in cities. Does that make it democratically right to be culturally insane?
There's something very unhinged about the deprivation of self-determination which the global web of cities impose on human culture.
This may seem to wander slightly off the topic's center , but Nature Deficit Disorder in people living couped up in a city (like e.g. Washington D.C) is highly related to the "misunderstandings that guide US foreign policy".
America's foreign policy is taken from "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli.
The idea is to smash anyone who attempts to stand on their own.
Mr. Weisbrot, may I recommend War is a Racket by Brig. Gen. Smedely D. Butler. He explains the whole process in his book.
U.S. invades foreign nation in support of U.S. multinational corporations. U.S. installs puppet leader to run country, (see Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua etc., etc.) puppet doesn't do what puppet master wants. Puppet master gets rid of puppet and replaces with new and improved puppet and starts the process all over again.
The American people know this process by heart. They like to bitch about it, but they never do anything about it. They keep voting the same pro business and pro war assholes into office over and over again and think things are going to change. They keep getting side tracked by this warm and fuzzy crap about hope, change and it's morning in America.
Works every time!
Oh, and it doesn't help that they always allow the talking heads on TV and radio to decide what is and isn't important to them. (You know Flag Burning, Guns, God, Gay Marriage,) Meanwhile their sons and daughters are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars are being shoved under the table by the fed to the to big to fail banks. And American workers are getting killed in the work place to make evil business people wealthy.
The real problem is a large majority of Americans don't get it, or they just don't give a damn.
Hah!
The gringo government don't need no stinkin' foreign policy.
They will just keep making and losing wars until they land in Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history".
I can't wait.
Banned again, huh keepreadingeman... ? Tell you what. You stop using that offensive word "gringo" and I'll "pay" you. Deal?
I don't make deals with internet stalkers.
You are an offensive gringo.
Not all gringos are offensive, but you definitely are.
'gringo' is, in and of itself, a derogatory term. Just as you are a third rate intellect with delusions.
You are a functionally illiterate gringo who is unable to use a dictionary--or even google wikiwacky before shooting off his redneck trap.
Read em and weep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gringo
Better luck next lifetime, sucker.
I suggest that , in future, you read your own link :
"The American Heritage Dictionary classifies gringo as "offensive slang," "usually disparaging," and "often disparaging."[1]"
I would offer that you seem to care little about earning respect here, but the way you make up statistics to prove silly points and insult people while claiming you dont already discounts any apparent seeking of respect or concern for truth.
Thanks doubledee for trying to knock some sense into that whatever it is. It offends everyone and gets banned all the time it seems.
Rude, offensive gringo, internet stalker, fascist fleabrain--that's you.
What do you do for an encore--dress up as trailer trash Palin in a red polyester jumpsuit?
My link, BTW, was to wikipedia.
But if you sockpuppets want to be denigrated, consider yourself denigrated. You sure deserve it.
I would say Barakus Obombus isn't at all unaware of what he's doing, and to call him a cynic is to just be realistic, given his 2008 campaign rhetoric. He talked the talk, but he sure as hell doesn't walk the walk. He is just another political prostitute for the US power elites, parasites off the rest of us that they are.
AD