Defining Ideas<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>
\n<\/i><\/p>\nUnited States foreign policy has been defined lately by serial failures. Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and appears to be preparing a reprise in eastern Ukraine, and possibly in the Baltic states. Syrian strongman Bashar al Assad is poised to win the civil war in Syria at the cost so far of over 200,000 dead. Negotiations with Iran over its uranium enrichment program have merely emboldened the regime and brought it closer to its goal of a nuclear weapon. And yet another attempt to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs has failed. In all these crises the U.S. has appeared weak and feckless, unable to direct events or achieve its aims, even as its displeasure and threats are scorned.<\/p>\n
The responsibility for these setbacks is often laid at the feet of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. The political calculations, ideology, and character flaws of both do indeed deserve much of the blame for America\u2019s weakness and ineffectiveness abroad. Yet another factor is larger than any one individual, administration, or party\u2013\u2013the flawed and often incoherent ideals shaping our understanding of interstate relations and our expectations of state behavior. Those ideals comprise a set of global norms that assume a universal morality shared by all countries despite the variety of cultures, religions, and governments in the world\u2019s 196 nations. And those norms in turn are embodied in the international order that encompasses the various multinational institutions, tribunals, organizations, conventions, declarations on human rights, and treaties, the purposes of which is to regulate state behavior, deter or stop oppression and violence, promote peace and prosperity, and adjudicate conflict.<\/p>\n
Official remarks and commentary on the current crises have been informed by this notion of a global consensus about which state behaviors are legitimate and which are not. John Kerry\u2019s comments on Russia\u2019s conflict with Ukraine, for example, scolded Putin, \u201cYou just don\u2019t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pretext.\u201d Similarly, President Obama protested, \u201cRussia\u2019s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident\u2013\u2013that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future,\u201d for such aggression \u201cis not how international law and international norms are observed in the 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n
Critics of the president\u2019s handling of the crisis have endorsed this same international order they feel has been weakened by the U.S.\u2019s timid or inept response. Fareed Zakaria of\u00a0The Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0referred to \u201cbroader global norms\u2013\u2013for example, against annexations by force. These have not always been honored, but, compared with the past, they have helped shape a more peaceful and prosperous world.\u201d So too David Rivkin and Lee Casey in\u00a0The Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0evoked \u201cthe three basic principles of international law, reflected in the United Nations Charter and long-standing custom,\u201d which \u201care the equality of all states, the sanctity of their territorial integrity, and noninterference of outsiders in their international affairs.\u201d<\/p>\nRivkin and Casey allude to the two main sources of international law: treaties of the sort that created the United Nations, and \u201clong-standing custom.\u201d Both have their weaknesses and questionable assumptions. As Robert Bork writes in\u00a0Coercing Virtue<\/em>, \u201cThere is nothing that can be called law in any meaningful sense established by custom. If there were, it would not restrain international aggression; it is more likely to unleash it . . . if custom is what counts, it favors aggression.\u201d This judgment is empirically validated by the incessant warfare, ethnic cleansing, civil wars, invasions of neighbors, and genocide that have attended the modern international order since its birth in the 19th century.<\/p>\nAs for treaties, a sovereign nation can refuse to sign a treaty. The United States, for example, has not signed the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. Nations can ignore or undermine treaties too, just as Russia violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum giving \u201csecurity assurances\u201d to Ukraine in exchange for the surrender of its nuclear arsenal. Or a nation can withdraw from a treaty if it no longer serves its interests. North Korea did this in 1994 when it withdrew from the International Atomic Energy Agency on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons. This behavior surprises no one who recognizes the wisdom expressed by George Washington, who said of the new nation\u2019s alliance with France, \u201cIt is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bounded by its interests.\u201d<\/p>\n
Internationalism, in contrast, assumes that \u201ccustomary norms,\u201d and the terms of a treaty like those creating international institutions, encode the universal morals and values that over time have emerged as the human race has progressed and become more civilized. Yet there is little evidence supporting this optimism, and much that shows Washington was right: national or regime interests determine whether these norms and terms, either customary or codified in treaties, are ignored, endorsed, or violated. We should not be surprised at this lack of consensus, given the variety of cultures, religions, and interests that shape both the means and the ends a state will pursue.<\/p>\n
For example, violence as an instrument for pursing national aims, including intentional violence against non-combatants, is proscribed by international law and agreements like the Geneva and Hague conventions. Yet different peoples can have different conceptions of when such violence is legitimate. In many Middle Eastern countries, for example, guerilla attacks against non-combatants far from any battlefield are called terrorism by Westerners, yet dubbed legitimate \u201cresistance\u201d by those like the Palestinian Arabs, who name parks and streets after notorious terrorists, celebrate their deeds in school curricula, and subsidize them and their families with stipends. This disagreement about the legitimacy of violence and its acceptable victims reflects radically different beliefs that cannot be harmonized in some larger set of global \u201cnorms.\u201d<\/p>\n
The primacy of national interest likewise explains the failure of states to consistently intervene in order to punish those violators of international \u201cnorms\u201d such as \u201cnoninterference of outsiders\u201d in another nation\u2019s affairs, or respect for \u201cterritorial integrity.\u201d China\u2019s absorption of Tibet, or Turkey\u2019s annexation of northern Cyprus, was met with diplomatic censure but left unpunished. Today these ongoing occupations\u2013\u2013like Putin\u2019s earlier violation of Georgia\u2019s territorial integrity\u2013\u2013 are\u00a0faits accomplis<\/em>, rarely mentioned even as Russia\u2019s similar annexation of Crimea is condemned. So too with violations of the universal prohibition against genocide, perhaps the most grievous crime in international law.\u00a0 Over 400,000 people in Darfur have been killed by Arab militias at the instigation of the Sudanese government, and 800,000 were slaughtered in Rwanda.<\/p>\nThese horrific crimes and violations of international law were not stopped or punished because it was not in the national interests of any major power to expend the necessary money and lives of its citizens, or to risk the unforeseen geopolitical consequences and blowback of such an intervention, to do so. These political calculations of national interests, which more often than not conflict with those of other nations, when camouflaged by public protestations of fealty to international norms and law, has opened up Western nations to the charge of hypocrisy and cynicism, and consequently eroded their moral authority. Given that \u201cinternational law is not law but politics,\u201d Bork writes, \u201cit is dangerous to give the name \u2018law,\u2019 which summons up respect, to political struggles that are essentially lawless.\u201d<\/p>\n
A further incoherence bedevils the idea of international norms binding on all peoples. The cultural relativism dominant in the West proscribes making negative judgments about the cultures and practices of other nations. Such criticisms are thought to bespeak a lingering imperialist and colonialist, if not racist, arrogance\u2014an attempt to impose Western morality and values on peoples with their own distinct and cherished cultures. Yet the foundational ideals of internationalism, such as human rights that exist apart from any particular regime or culture, imply not just a universalism contradicting cultural relativism, but also a moral ranking of cultures determined by their adherence to human rights, sex equality, tolerance for religious minorities, honesty in negotiation, individual freedom, and the stigmatizing of brutality and violence.<\/p>\n
Yet how can these privileged norms be coherently integrated with the idea of national sovereignty and self-determination, and the imperative to respect and tolerate the cultural differences that define a unique national identity? If we are unwilling to say that ideals like respecting the territorial integrity of neighbors are superior to, not just different from, the cultures of other nations that violate such ideals; and if we cannot affirm that they trump the \u201csanctity\u201d of the offenders\u2019 territorial integrity and so justify our interventions to stop or punish violators\u2013\u2013even if the aggressor\u2019s behavior is motivated by beliefs and values integral to that nation\u2019s culture and identity\u2013\u2013then the foundations of the international order are built on sand, and our foreign policy will appear to be yet another hypocritical perfuming of\u00a0realpolitik<\/em>\u00a0with idealistic rhetoric, or the empty diplomatic gestures of a weak state eager to avoid conflict.<\/p>\nIn all the current crises, these contradictions and inconsistencies have compromised our responses and limited our actions, with the result that our interests and security have been endangered by the perception of weakness such failures invite. We need to recognize that the belief in norms established by custom or by treaty will not truly exist until nations share, as Bork writes, \u201ca common political morality or are under a common sovereignty. A glance at the real world suggests we have a while to wait.\u201d And as we wait for that utopian day unlikely to ever arrive, we should not be surprised that global predators continue to scorn \u201ccustomary norms\u201d and violate treaties, governed only by the timeless Thucydidean maxim\u2013\u2013 \u201cThe strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
American foreign policy could use a does of hard-nosed realism. by Bruce S. Thornton \/\/\u00a0Defining Ideas\u00a0 United States foreign policy has been defined lately by serial failures. Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and appears to be preparing a reprise in eastern Ukraine, and possibly in the Baltic states. Syrian strongman Bashar al Assad is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[22,846,196],"tags":[255,12,249,253,1083,424],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-1Tq","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6489,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-charade-can-go-on-and-on-and-on\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":0},"title":"The Charade Can Go On — and On and On . . .","author":"victorhanson","date":"September 17, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0NRO's The Corner So far in the Syrian charade, Bashar Assad has won de facto permission to be a legitimate ruler negotiating with superpowers, while promising to kill thousands more by blowing them up, shelling them, and shooting them without \u201cobscene\u201d chemical weapons. Vladimir Putin controls\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Policy"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Policy","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/obama-administration\/foreign-policy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/9384701499_3a835e687b-300x200.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7014,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/obamas-foreign-policy-enemy-action\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":1},"title":"Obama’s Foreign Policy: Enemy Action","author":"victorhanson","date":"February 18, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bruce S. Thornton \/\/\u00a0FrontPage Magazine\u00a0 It\u2019s often hard to determine whether a series of bad policies results from stupidity or malicious intent. Occam\u2019s razor suggests that the former is the more likely explanation, as conspiracies assume a high degree of intelligence, complex organization, and secrecy among a large number\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bruce S. Thornton"","block_context":{"text":"Bruce S. Thornton","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/bruce-s-thornton\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7839,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/obamas-foreign-policy-of-empty-words\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":2},"title":"Obama\u2019s Foreign Policy of Empty Words","author":"victorhanson","date":"September 10, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen force threatens, talk is no good.\u201d\u00a0 by Bruce S. Thornton \/\/ FrontPage Magazine That line from John Ford\u2019s classic The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance contains wisdom everyone from peasant to king knew before our modern age and its smug\u00a0illusions. Go back 2,400 years, and you can hear it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Our Contributors"","block_context":{"text":"Our Contributors","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Photo via FrontPage Magazine","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/1393766471000-AP-Obama-Budget-001-450x337.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7075,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/sacrificing-the-military-to-entitlements\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":3},"title":"Sacrificing the Military to Entitlements","author":"victorhanson","date":"March 4, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bruce S. Thornton \/\/\u00a0FrontPage Magazine\u00a0 Vladimir Putin, playing geopolitical chess while our president plays tiddlywinks, has effectively taken over Crimea. Armed men, looking suspiciously like Russian military personnel, have seized both airports and established border checkpoints decorated with Kalashnikovs and Russian flags. This comes after other armed men seized\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Ukraine"","block_context":{"text":"Ukraine","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/europe\/ukraine\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, center, is escorted by U.S. Air Force Gen. Jack Weinstein after arriving at the missile alert facility and launch control center at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., Jan. 9, 2014. Hagel was on a two-day trip to visit commands in the western United States.","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/800px-thumbnail.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6584,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/game-changers\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":4},"title":"‘Game Changers’","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 3, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0Tribune Media Services\u00a0 When -- not if -- is the only mystery about an Iranian nuclear bomb. All the warning signs are there. 'Game changers' In 2008, presidential candidate\u00a0Barack Obama\u00a0on two occasions went out of his way to warn the Iranians that the development of a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Punditry"","block_context":{"text":"Punditry","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/opinion\/punditry\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2416,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/a-lovely-little-nato-intervention\/","url_meta":{"origin":7280,"position":5},"title":"A Lovely Little NATO Intervention","author":"victorhanson","date":"August 25, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bruce S. Thornton FrontPage Magazine World powers sometimes have to fight wars not for some material interest, but for bolstering a nation\u2019s prestige in order to deter more dangerous aggressors. As Margaret Thatcher said after England\u2019s defeat of Argentina in the 1982 Falklands War, the conflict showed that \u201cnow\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bruce S. Thornton"","block_context":{"text":"Bruce S. Thornton","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/bruce-s-thornton\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7280"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7280"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7280\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7281,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7280\/revisions\/7281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}