For a Foreign Policy Influenced by Principles of Federalism

FOR A FOREIGN POLICY INFLUENCED BY PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM

-OVERVIEW-

to meet the challenges of the post cold war era a new framework for our engagement with the world is needed. george kennan's containment theory was adopted as the doctrine of the cold war. that doctrine dealt with a bi-polar world in which two superpowers had the ability to destroy the other. because of that balance of terror, a hot war was to be avoided at all costs and the conflict between the two played itself out in proxy wars throughout the world where each side attempted to check the expansion and influence of the other. two major alliances, nato and the warsaw pact, dominated world geopolitics.

the current world situation is best described by samuel huntington in his 1993 article, "the clash of civilizations." by contrast with the cold war, the clash of civilizations is a multi-polar world. it is sometimes said that the world is now unipolar with the united states as the unchallenged superpower but huntington's paradigm better captures the subleties and complexities of the world today.

in this view the world is divided into seven or eight civilizational blocks, the west, orthodox-slav, china, japan, latin amerca, islam, hindu, and perhaps africa and huntington predicted that conflict would occur along the fault lines of those civilizations. he argued persuasively that these conflicts would be more intractable than even the ideological conflict between marxism and capitalism because of the stronger identification that people have with their cultures. as he put it, "a communist today can become a capitalist tomorrow but a turk can never become an armenian."

additionally, huntington said that conflict would be more tenacious because of the religious influence in civilizations. to fight for an ideology or even one's country is one thing, to fight for a religion, that claims control over not only this world but the next, is another.

while huntington's paradigm is the one adopted in this analysis it is not a doctrine of enagement as the containment theory was. within his framework however the new doctrine below is proposed.

-THE NORMATIVE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM-

america stands for many things, democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech, capitalism, individual responsibility and self-determination, to name a few. sometimes these values come into conflict, as for example freedom of speech and individual responsibility sometimes do.

it is accepted here that the preeminent interest of any nation is security. that interest above all else must be accomplished. that interest also often times comes into conflict with adherence to and promotion of our values and when it does, the view here is that national security must prevail.

in constructing a new doctrine, how it is described, how it is presented to the world, is important. for example, the first bush administration was inconsistent in it's descrption of the reason for our intervention to prevent iraq's takeover of kuwait. at one point secretary of state baker said the fight was over "jobs," a wholly insufficient reason for our action even at home much less for the nations whose support we wanted.

the point is not just a semantic one. as indicated, it can significantly effect the perception of the acceptability of the conflict at home and abroad. it can also effect the conflict itself. it is a truism of politics that he who defines the terms of the debate has a better chance of winning the debate. implicit in this notion however is that each side must accept, tacitly of course, the same description because the point of a doctrine is to manage the conflict so as to avoid war. for instance, a conflict that is seen only in ascriptive terms, that is simply because one side is turkish and the other armenian or one side is arab and the other israeli, is going to be most difficult to channel onto less destructive planes than war since there is no commonality to which appeal can be made.

in the cold war it was "freedom" that was the value used to describe the raison d'etre of the conflict. the world itself was divided up into the "free" world, the communist world and the "third" world. the united states fought in korea and vietnam for "freedom." most importantly it was the appropriate term because it was accepted by the soviets who saw the struggle as about freedom too, just that their freedom was the more authentic one. this convergence in terminology was possible because capitalism and communism were both western inventions. huntington describes russia as a "torn" country, not wholly in one civilization but having the influences of the west and orthodox-slav civilizations, but at least ideologically the soviet union was western. in fact, one commentator cited by huntington even describes the cold war and both world wars as "western civil wars."

not so clear however is what value is appropriate to describe civilizational conflict. "freedom" may still be acceptable but the guess here is that it is not the word that would be used by, for example, islam in describing it's conflict with the west.

this is so first, because freedom is a term still redolent of the cold war paradigm. second, it is closely tied with democracy, a value that decidedly is not accepted by important segments of islam, for example. to select just one example, one islamic commentator writing in a pro-iranian publication stated that "subjective western terms must be avoided like the plague if their western baggage is to be successfully excluded from islamic political thought. democracy is perhaps the most important of these."1 if democracy is "excluded from islamic political thought" it does no good to describe the conflict with that term and that probably excludes "freedom" also as the most appropriate term of description.

third, freedom is just not a bedrock value of theocracies. there is no claim that the people know best. jesus knows best, or mohammad knows best and his laws must be followed, not because the people voted for them but because they are divinely pronounced. if the concept of freedom resonates at all in such a system it would be of the "in-our-slavery-there-is-freedom," type, a description that strips the term of any shared meaning with the west.

finally, freedom is almost a buzzword for islamic rage at the united states because the u.s. is seen as so hypocritical in using it. we say we stand for freedom but then we support undemocratic, positively oppressive regimes like saudi arabia and iran under the shah.

so freedom may not be a common point of departure for a world marked by competing civilizations, at least not one between the west and islam.

it is suggested here that the value that would best serve as a common point of departure is "self-determination," undoubtedly one of the core values of the west and also a concept used by other civilizations to justify their actions. of course, self-determination and freedom, or self-determination and democracy, are really distinctions without differences in the definitional sense but an important component of the doctrinal break proposed is that america change not only it's policies and it's doctrine but also it's discourse with other civilizations.

self-determination is a term that captures many of the strands of thought in other civilizations as well as one of their main objections to the conduct of the united states. china uses it as the rationale to tell the u.s. to get off it's "human rights" agenda. the palestinians claim the right to self-determination, perhaps because they so little value democracy, in their fight for statehood. arab states generally, even friendly ones like jordan, took great umbrage at america's involvement in the iraq-kuwait war, claiming that it was an arab problem, a matter of arab "self-determination" in which the united states, a member of another civilization, should stay out.2 most importantly, self-determination is an important term in civilizational discourse because it is the only way in which a civilization can survive.

self-determination also captures the complaint of so much of the world that american popular culture, from movies to tv to music to corporations like mcdonalds smothers anything different, obliterates any local popular culture. there is the understandable need to be different, not to be dominated by one country in all respects, and to preserve local ways. self-determination is a way of describing these desiderata.

finally, self-determination is the mantra of the nationhood movement, the most dynamic deveopment in the world after world war II. from the subcontinent, to the middle east, to latin america and africa the most desired thing was one's own state, so that a people could exercise "self-determination" once and for all.

simply as a forensic tool also, self-determination is preferable to freedom. as mentioned above, there is a need to come up with a new discourse, and as will be gotten into below in a discussion of implementation of the proposed doctrine, there is going to be a need for america to be adaptable in its strategies, to form new alliances for one purpose, then dissolve them and form others for another purpose, in general to be quick-changing in order to meet the realities of a multi-polar world and also to keep our enemies off-guard. to adopt the language of one's opponent is flummoxing, it is confusing, it signals the scope of the doctrinal change and forces one's opponent to react on the defensive rather than act on the offensive. one example from domestic politics was president clinton's coopting of the republican tax cut proposals in the middle of the 1996 election, an action that robbed senator bob dole of the most important forensic tool he had.

-INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM-

MILITARY INVOLVEMENT

the doctrine proposed here borrows from concepts of governmental relations embodied in federalism. the differences between international affairs and national government are of course stark so it is only as a philosophy of governmental RELATIONS and as a mneumonic that federalism is used here.

to think of the characteristics of federalism is to think of a central government that maintains exclusive control over national security but in almost all other areas is distinguished from other systems by the degree to which it devolves power to other political units--in taxation, social services, education, religion, etc. in other words in cultural areas federalism is characterized by tolerance for diversity, respect for local conditions and desires, and an underlying faith in the creative value of constituent "laboratories" of social relations. this philosophy also imbues the doctrine of international federalism.

the united states is by far the dominant military power in the world today. paul kennedy has stated that it is the most powerful country the world has had at least since the roman empire. if anything kennedy undervalues america's might. rome may have had the biggest army in the ancient world, it may have defeated all rivals in it's region, but it had no control over other powers in other regions, e.g. china.

american military power by contrast is able to project it's dominance over any other nation, over any other civilization, at any time, anywhere in the world. no nation has ever had that capability.

under international federalism that power would be used unhesitatingly, massively and decisively to vouchafe national security but not to impose a pax americana on the world. where it's national security iss not directly threatened the presumption under international federalism would be against military involvement. this doctrinal shift would require a shift in nomenclature. current policy justifies all manner of intervention when it is in "the national interest." the value of that phrase, but also it's curse, is that it can mean most anything. undoubtedly we had a national interest in friendly relations with the shah, the dictator of an important country. noone an gainsay the national interest we have in friendly relations with the saudi government. but our national security was not threatened by iran nor is it by saudi arabia and yet we intervened in both by supplying the governments with the military hardware that they used to oppress their people.

the result in iran was a popular hatred of america that continues to this day. in time the same will be the result in saudi arabia. we are the globe's only super-power; we are it's dominant ecnomic power, we live in a world the farthest corner of which can be reached in day. in this world there are "national interests" for america everywhere. such a justification for international involvement is worse than meaningless. it sanctions intervention anywhere for anything.

the fact that america has unchallenged power requires that it exercise that power parsimoneously if it is to exercise it wisely. and to do that requires, as a start at least, that it redefine the justification for military intervention from "national interest" to "national security." emphasizing a significant distinction between those two can be scoffed at, but as discussed above words, are important in international relations. "national security" is a more limiting phrase than "national interest," just as "self-determination" is subtly but significantly different than "freedom" and it's "baggage."

with the new premium placed on national security, cases of local conflict, where the facts cry out for outside military intervention, as for example in bosnia-herzogovina and haiti, would be the responsibility of regional bodies and the united nations. a clear rejection of the role of america as world policeman would be made. however well-motivated, military action by the united states not done for national security often leads to local humiliation and resentment especially when that intervention is in another civilization.2

the doctrine proposed here would also diverge from the current in that america would be much more preemptive in it's actions. for example, america must not hesitate to use it's military power to enforce non-proliferatiion of weapons of mass destruction. there is no greater threat to national and world security. america should state clearly to the world that no further proliferation will be tolerated, that all non-possessing countries must to submit to random inspections and that refusal to, or the discovery of such capability will result in military destruction of the suspected sites.

further, those countries in hostile civilizations already possessing wmd capability would be ordered to dismantle such facilities, to submit to inspection for compliance and similarly to have compliance enforced militarily if need be.

america's military alliances would be redone to reflect new realities. as has been argued in this space previously, nato would cease to exist as a military alliance. in it's place would be not a single new alliance but a changing array of alliances depending on situational needs.

for example, in america's military dealings with islam an alliance of the u.s., england, and israel should be fashioned. and here i would diverge from huntington. at least militarily there is no such thing as a "western civilization." whatever shared cultural and historical past there is, the nations of the european union do not share the same security interests in the clash with islam as do the u.s., england, and israel. and the u.s., england and israel would probably not share the same security interests in a conflict with the orthodox-slave civilzation as the european nations would. so it makes no sense to claim there is an alliance with the european countries in the conflict with islam when already there are citizen protests of our post-sept. 11 actions and distancing of us by their governments. conversely, it makes no sense for the u.s. to become involved militarily in a bosnian conflict that is right on europe's doorstep and does not involve american national security.

by way of further illustration, if there were a threat from china to america it would be ludicrous to include israel in an opposing military coalition, just as including korea and japan, obvious partners in a coalition against china, in the conflict with islam would be ludicrous. to make a brief digression on china. as i have argued in previous criticism of nato, perpetuation of a military alliance is not a harmless anachronism. so it is with our self-defense treaty with taiwan. it is a vestige of the cold war and should be ended. just this year president bush belligerently and mindlessly recommitted america to that alliance. if the united states wars with china because of this outdated treaty it would be the biggest folly in military history.

to summarize the military component of international federalism:

I. primacy on national security over any other role for the military.
II. use of preemptive force on non-proliferaton.
III. new alliances.

NON-MILITARY CONDUCT

obviously the point of a foreign policy doctrine is to avoid war. war occurs when the doctrine is flawed and fails. the military component of a foreign policy doctrine focuses on managing hostilities so that they will not escalate into war. but engaging in a military exchange is a second-best alternative and only second-best because the other is war. it is not possible to avoid hostilities everywhere, all the time. but the non-military component of a doctrine seeks to minimize those occasions when force will be used. and it is in this area that i believe the greatest change must be made in american foreign policy.

as stated earlier in this post america stands for many things, democracy, freedom, self-determination, free speech, etc. for much, perhaps most, of the world, america remains the "shining city on the hill."

there is envy of the shining city of course, of our success, our prosperity, of our goodness and that criticism we can ignor. but for important parts of the world, even among our allies, there is hatred because the america they experience stands for corporate economics and an cultural gresham's law. a foreign policy based on federalist principles would change that, for one of federalism's key components is tolerance and encouragement of local diversity.

america has always been blessed by it's geographic isolation. it was less tempted by folly because of impracticality. but as the world has gotten smaller and america stronger america has involved itself in misadventures that are a direct consequence of lack of attention to the non-military component of a foreign policy doctrine. our support for the corrupt and unpopular south vietnames government led to a war that cost 50,000 lives. our support of the shah of iran led to the emeritic islamic republic of iran. we have helped overthrow popularly elected governments. we have ignored or opposed indigenous, legitimate populist revolutions. for half a century we have too often let our foreign policy be influenced by the interests of corporations-oil companies in the middle east, sugar companies in cuba, copper companies in chile-and all the while we have claimed that what america stands for is freedom.

of course none of the above is new analysis. but there has been no change in doctrine or actions. indeed there has never been a doctrine that has addressed this aspect of our foreign policy. the concentration has always been on the military.

america should preach self-determination. our foreign policy has almost without exception been based on government-to-government relations. the result has been that we have given support to "friendly" governments that horribly oppress their people. the previously mentioned shah of iran, the current saudi government, countless examples all over the globe. predictably, we have thus been midwives to generations of people who hate us, who hate what we stand for in reality and who hate our hypocrisy.

international federalism would replace this janus face with one less hypocritical. it would appeal to the people, not the governments. america does this sometimes now, but rarely and hypocritically. we appeal to the people of cuba for example. but we do not appeal to the people of saudi arabia because their government is "friendly", to our government, but not to its own people. american foreign policy, and the american president should speak directly to the people of the world.

president kennedy did this in his dramatic address to the people of germany in his trip to west berlin in 1962. he concluded a soaring, almost taunting speech on the differnces between the west and russia by declaring that "as a free man, i am proud to say "ich bin ein berliner." america is a free country but it was not freedom that fueled the american revolution. england was certainly a free country. rather, america was acountry born of the struggle for self-determination and an american president should be as proud also to say "i am a tibetan," or "i am a kurd." it is this kind of populist appeal that would be a feature international federalism.

of course there still would be seen hypocrisy in this. we would appeal to the people of saudi arabia and urge greater self-determination for them but we would continue to deal with the monarchy at the governmental level. that is the nature of realpolitik. we would make clear, we should say so explicitly, that we will not overthrow that or any government that doesn't directly threaten our national security but we should appeal to the masses and then use the philosophy of "constructive engagement" that we use with, e.g. china, with "friendly" regimes also.

this is not a matter of being morally penny-wise and strategically pound-foolish. america will reap what it sows in other civilizations and we will limit the likelihood of conflict with the seeding of self-determination in the peoples of the world.

the respect for diversity in local conditions that is at the heart of federalism plays itself out on our domestic front in the eternal conflict between majority rule and minority rights. there are no bright lines that can be drawn between the two. all that can be done is to be sensitive that one man's democracy not become another man's oppression.

this same concern would apply in a foreign policy based on federalism. the world trade organization and it's predecessor the general agreement on tarrifs and trade have done more than anything else to fuel the unprecedented expansion of the world economy. the uniform lowering of trade barriers has opened up markets all over the industrialized world and has given consumers greater freedom of choice than ever before.

but freedom, whether of speech or association or of the press, has always been limited in the american democracy. one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, one can not form an american branch of al qaeda and one cannot publish pornography. the argument here is that america should self-impose minor limits on its corporations penetration of foreign markets.

a wry french saying has it that french law is perfectly fair, it prohibits panhandling by rich and poor alike. free trade is good for people worldwide but it is better for some than for others. it is best for american corporations, the most highly evolved at production and marketing. free competition in the fast food industry between mcdonalds and le grand mac may be free but it's not really competitive. in the vast majority of free trade cases se la vie. but when america restricts freedom from becoming oppression at home we must do the same abroad.

three concerns with regard to corporate conduct abroad come to mind. the first is the dominance of american popular culture. the second is the treatment of workers in other countries and the third is the support of regimes that oppress their people because we want to exploit their natural resources.













--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)iqhal siddiqui, crescet international. june 16-30 2000.

(2) borrowing from krauthammer, some of the considerations would be, what is the national interest at stake; is there a moral issue at stake; what is the objective; can the objective be accomplished by non-military means; can the objective be accomplished by military means at an acceptable cost level in lives and money; is there support at home for the action; is there support abroad. note this is a list of considerations only. there is nothing formulaic, e.g. if you have 4 of the seven then you intervene. in some cases the national interest will be so compelling that it will subsume all the others. in other cases there may be both a security and moral interest involved but the cost i too high.

(3) huntington related that during the gulf war even erstwhile ally king hussein of jordan complained that the war was not "the world versus iraq" but "the west versus islam."