WHAT ARE AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTERESTS?
In foreign policy, I consider myself an internationalist. I believe in the UN system. The UN system is definitely flawed (some of those flaws being built into the system by the big powers) but hardly discredited. But, as the best, or least bad, system out there for facilitating international relations and encouraging stability, it should be reformed, not scrapped. I believe in humanitarianism, of which the UN is often the central coordinator. I believe in fairness, broadly defined, in international relations as something that we should strive for. I recognize that all nations' power will never truly be equal in the real world. But while we will never achieve this ideal, we should constantly be trying in that direction. I believe in a proper equilibrium among indigenous cultural traditions, respect for individual and human rights and local sovereignty; all in noting that such balance is not easily definable. I believe that richer nations have a moral obligation to help out poorer nations; and I believe it's in the richer nations' economic interest to do so as well. I believe that in return for such help, richer nations should have no qualms in expecting poorer nations' governments to use that help in the interest of their people.

Some people oppose the internationalist philosophy. The two largest camps seem to be the isolationists and the unilateralists. Of course, any such broad generalization is going to be lacking in nuance. I recognize that some people might not think they fit into any of these descriptions. With that in mind...

*The unilateralists, via the neo-conservative movement, are presently in control of the foreign policy agenda. They believe that America should act on its own, to advance its values and interests, without regard to what the rest of the world thinks. They would contend that they don't hate the rest of the world and that America should accept foreign help when offered, only that the US shouldn't be "held hostage" by international opinion. They believe that American values should be pre-eminent.

These positions have created many problems. While most Americans likely believe American values are the best, the neo-conservative unilateralists extrapolate this one step further. To them, it's not enough to let American values to triumph on their own, those values must be imposed by force, militarily if necessary. They do not recognize the incongruity of imposing liberty and freedom via occupation and the barrel of a gun. Furthermore, while they claim not to be overtly hostile to international opinion, in the last year and a half, it seems many have gone out of their way to antagonize other countries. Not just "terrorism lovers," as they might call them, but our longtime friends and allies who share our values. The US could've disagreed with France or Germany on the Iraq war without launching a national character assassination of those countries; it's of note that most European opposition targeted their criticism to the person of President Bush (the person who made the objectionable policy) rather than attacking the American people as a whole. While we may be able to antagonize international opinion in a specific case if the administration thinks it necessary, it will surely be disastrous as consistent, long term policy.

*The isolationists, and I believe I'm stating this accurately, tend to believe that America should never act unless her interests or territory are directly threatened or attacked. They place the concept of national sovereignty above all others. While they often have personal sympathy with the plight of people in worn-torn countries or under the thumb of despots, they do not believe it's America's role to solve these problems.

But both isolationists and unilateralists base their positions upon what's in our national interest, in contrast to internationalists who focus on international stability. Yet, the phrase "national interest" is one that's almost always undefined. Like obscenity, it seems, you can't define it but you recognize it when you see it. I don't believe this is satisfactory. If this is going to be the cornerstone of one's foreign policy, it should be explicit and well-defined.

The reason I say this is because "national interests" has historically meant economics. There have certainly been exceptions, for when the national territory was attacked. But more often than most people realize, "national interests" have been defined as what's in the interest of American corporations. This is not new, or unique to the Bush administration. The economic vitality of American fruit, sugar and rubber companies have played a critical role in the US' relations with Latin America. Economics and trade are why we annexed the previously independent Hawaii, why we helped Panama secede from Colombia, we why effectued "regime change" (long before anyone knew of Saddam) in countries with nationalistic, democratically-elected governments. The US government hasn't supported countless corrupt, brutal dictators because any president liked corruption and brutality; it did so, almost invariably, for economic reasons.

When I said the invasion of Iraq was done for economic reasons, I was denounced as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Oil was a factor, certainly, but not the only factor. There is a broader goal of expanding American economic influence in the Middle East. That's why the war took place. My critics reacted with shock and awe, as though economics as a justification for the Iraq war was inconceivable; I contend that this fits in quite well with the historical pattern.

Yet I issue a challenge my isolationist and unilateralist friends. I suspect some of them will not appreciate my characterization of their version of America's "national interests." If they do not believe that the economic vitality of big business should be at the heart of American "national interests," then I urge them to define it for themselves; to give a positive vision of what they believe should guide American foreign policy. What are our national interests? Not what they aren't, but what they are.