The Collegiate Laws of Life Essay Contest asked Penn State Students to explore ethical values and intercultural issues, and their talent for expressing their views in writing. Below, you will find the second place essay from Natalie Morrissey, ’18, Schreyer Scholar, Chemical Engineering, responding to the prompt:
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regards foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connections possible…. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” ~ George Washington
How should we understand this historical legacy? Do you think the United States should continue to foster democracy across the world? Why or why not?
From the aftermath of the American Revolution until World War II, American foreign policy was characterized by isolationism. George Washington, in his farewell address, advised the nation to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” guidance that was followed for nearly two centuries. His predecessors, among them Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, further advised the emerging nation to avoid all diplomatic entanglements (Fromkin).
Beginning in World War II, this philosophy began to change, motivated by the goal of containing communism. And today, our nation, a leader in global economic and security issues, has completely reversed this policy. Our alliances, among them NATO, ANZUS, Kyoto, and the U.N. (“U.S. Collective”), have directly involved us in the affairs of other nations. But the real danger does not lie in our entangling alliances, which we sought to avoid throughout history. The danger lies in the military obligations we have shouldered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the international issues for which we have assumed nearly sole responsibility. Our overextension in military and political issues across the globe is beginning to backfire.
Since the tragedy of 9/11, the policy of spreading democracy has been sold as an attainable, strategic objective (Lagon), and a politically favorable platform. Congress has used the threat of terrorism to justify increasing military spending and American involvement in global conflicts. But while spreading democracy to every corner of the globe is a lofty goal, it has often failed in practice, spawning more problems than it solves. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, regime change has destroyed existing political and social institutions (Baum), reinforcing the idea that violent overthrow is justifiable, and making it even less likely that a democracy will emerge. Additionally, over the last century, we have provided financing and weapons to numerous authoritarian leaders and oppressive regimes, among them Gaddafi and Mubarak (Zunes). Thus, we often contradict our democratic ideals when we support autocratic leaders to promote U.S. interests.
The U.S. spends 20% of its budget on defense, more than the next eight nations combined. But building a superior military power does not authorize us to enforce our values. In fact, our military intervention has often been the antithesis of the fair and democratic ideals we attempt to promote. The United States’ unilateral invasion of Iraq claimed 116,000 civilian lives, and thousands of civilians have been killed by US drone strikes (Blair). Not only are these civilian casualties a violation of human rights, but our nation also endures significant backlash. ISIS and Boko Haram have resurged in power due to their rallying against American presence in Middle Eastern nations (Smith).
Political disagreements are divided along the line of interventionists and isolationists, with politicians unwilling to compromise. But the issue is not quite so black and white, and this strife has caused our nation to ignore other possible courses of action. Intervention is a crucial policy, provided we change the tools with which we deploy it. Shrinking into isolation is not the solution, but neither is forcing our ideals – even democracy – on other nations. Instead, we must lead by example, through multilateral action and international cooperation, striking a balance between two seemingly opposing ideals.
The solutions to the biggest global issues we are facing- climate change, the spread of diseases, and world poverty- will not manifest through military force. But governments have been criticized as uncooperative, and the UN as ineffective. So if military force, diplomacy, and democratization are not viable solutions, then what is?
It is time to look to non-traditional, but nonetheless tangible methods- not through governments, but through the connections between individuals, uniting nations through professionals among disciplines. We can start with scientists, the most prominent actors working towards cooperative solutions to climate change; through doctors, working towards cheaper dispersion of vaccinations and a cure for Ebola in underdeveloped nations; through teachers, those willing to improve education around the world. Instead of direct governmental action, governments can allocate more funding for individuals to pursue these endeavors.
Second, we can work towards increasing the power of multinational groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There are an estimated 1.5 million NGOs in the United States alone (“Non-Governmental”), including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and WorldVision- diverse groups engaged in a variety of undertakings. As these organizations are less politically-driven than governments and less profit-driven than businesses, we should utilize them to facilitate international cooperation on their respective issues.
President Washington’s advice, while appropriate for an emerging nation, was presented in a time where issues were not inter-governmental. Today, instead of refraining from international cooperation, we must achieve this cooperation in a new way. Only by overlooking political ideologies and international conflicts can we tackle these problems wherever they emerge, paving the way towards a more interrelated and prosperous future.
Work Cited
Baum, Deborah. “Estimated Cost of Post-9/11 Wars: 225,000 Lives, up to $4 Trillion.” News from Brown. Brown University, 29 June 2011. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
Blair, David. “Iraq War 10 Years On: At Least 116,000 Civilians Killed.” The Telegraph. The Telegraph, 15 May 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
Fromkin, David. “Entangling Alliances.” Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
Lagon, Mark. “Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
” Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States.”Humanrights.gov. U.S. Department of State, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.
Smith, Jack. “Terrorism – Causes and Consequences.” Global Research. Centre for Research on Globalization. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
“U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.
Zunes, Stephen. “Libya, the United States, and the Anti-Gaddafi Revolt.” The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 25 Feb. 2011. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.