In Part 1 of this post, we explored some of the many reasons that the United States inserts itself militarily into world affairs. That favored approach to foreign policy is essentially a top-down methodology in which the US interacts with a regime at the government/state level and the effects of that interaction eventually flow down to the people of that country. There are numerous examples from the last hundred years that show this methodology to be flawed and Iraq is only the latest instance. The policy of doing what is right for American interests, and the rest of the world be damned, has not achieved the goals that so many thought it would, namely security and prosperity.
Is there an alternative to fighting wars for US capitalism? An alternative that could not only serve the interests of Americans, but for the rest of the world too? I believe there is and it calls for a bottom-up approach to foreign policy that eschews the status quo needs of corporations. Deal with the people of the world directly. Do not interfere or topple their governments. This doesn't mean we should help people overthrow their governments - it means we should help them improve their lives by becoming healthier and more prosperous, and being sincere in our approach. In other words, a selfless approach to foreign policy. You're probably thinking "wow, this is really pie in the sky stuff." I know, but I'm an idealist and clearly not grounded in reality!
One could argue that the United States already has several government programs that are modeled on this approach. While that is true to an extent, these programs don't represent the focal point of US foreign policy. They also aren't entirely selfless as they are often sponsored by the interests of pharmaceutical companies and oil companies, and thus benefit those entities over the people they purport to help.
The likelihood of such a foreign policy focus coming to fruition is low. Case in point is demonstrated by this article from the Washington Post describing how a report from the US Surgeon General was blocked for political reasons. According to the Post:
The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate.
This sounds exactly like the kind of focus I was calling for, yet it's been blocked by a bureaucrat with long standing ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney because the document wasn't political. And that is the crux of the problem. Everything must be political in Washington today. If a program doesn't concern itself with keeping Bush and Republicans in power, then it isn't a program worth doing. Maintaining power is at the top of the priority list; somewhere down around 900 on that list is doing the right thing for the world.
Yet doing the right thing for the world might ultimately be the best thing for America. World perception of the US would be far more favorable and our credibility would be restored. Too bad it will never happen.
