Non-Intervention Foreign Policy

I've been told we have a new President in the White House, but honestly it's been so busy in the guitar shop I hadn't really noticed a difference. Apparently he got an award for peace or something this week that got folks all stirred up.

I don't know why everyone's so excited, because the last time I checked news headlines, things looked pretty much the same as last year: bailouts for politically connected bankers, ever-growing and intrusive federal government, offshore prisons, and undeclared wars throughout the Meddle East.

I can't seem to remember the new guy's name — blue pinstriped suit, oval office — but it does seem like a good opportunity to explain the subtle differences in how we relate to other nations.

Ahem.

Let's pretend we're neighbors.

We live in a typical suburb with fenced yard, 1.5 kids, dog. Lawnmower. Grill. Narrator's perspective will represent US foreign policy options:

Bush Doctrine (current US policy including preemptive strike option) — I'm going to watch you and your family over the fence. I've got wiretaps on your phone, and surveillance cameras in your potted plants. And in my house as well, so I can spy on my wife and children. If you say or do anything I don't agree with (including argue with your wife, or hit your child) I can and will break into your house and, at my discretion, kill any member of your family and/or hold them indefinitely in a pit I dug in my basement. Not even the police can help you, because I am the only one with a nuclear weapon.

(makes you want to get a nuke to protect yourself with, right?)

United Nations — Same as above, except now I run the local homeowner's association, where I might (or might not) discuss with them the fact that I'm going to whump your butt. There's the possibility I will enlist a few others to come in and help me whump your butt. It will depend on who I'm "friends" with, and whether or not they like you or just want your grill and lawnmower for themselves. Only me and my homies can have nukes.

(definitely need a nuke of your own, right?)

Isolationist — I've got nukes. I have no friends. I'm watching you over the fence. I won't let my wife or kids talk to you. Incoming calls are screened. And you can only communicate with me using mathematical symbols, inscribed in purple plastic, and placed beside the mailbox on Tuesday. My windows are boarded. No, you may not borrow a cup of sugar. Get off my grass.

(you're checking real estate prices on the other side of town)

Non-interventionism — Got nukes as a deterrent, because an armed society is a polite society. My house has an alarm system, in case someone tries to break in. I still have a fence, but you and I talked and decided to build a gate in the fence so our families can visit and grill together whenever they want. We go fishing together, borrow BBQ sauce, and talk politics and religion over a couple of beers.

So you see, Non-interventionism is much like Star Trek's Prime Directive. Here, I'll just let Dr. Paul explain...

Comments

[Alberto Muti]

I see the point, there, but it does not totally convince me, to be honest: Probably, a great deal of the difference in our views lies in the very different political cultures rooted in Europe and the US, but still, i fear that there are some nuances that a simple Non-interventionist policy cannot properly address; as you always say, our actions have consequences who spread far and large, now more than ever, to the point that the wrinkles in the water where our stone falls can really become tidal waves for someone else (like the butterfly effect, but done purposefully sometimes, sadly) and States are Hardly the most important causes of these ripples and tsunamis: International Corporations, wolrdwide crime syndicates, lobbies and pressure group and also, yes, terrorists networks (not that they are not a menace: just, as mr Paul -whose speech was brilliant, by the way- said, they have been met with totally wrong answers) all can act on a scale that enables them to escape the Authority of a single State, and bringing on their own (legal or illegal, ethical or, sadly often, not) business undisturbed.
Furhtermore, some infra-state problems still cannot be dismissed as "internal policies under the other state's sovereignity", Just thinking about Darfur, for example, where a Genocide was operated by the government itself...
In my opinion, a complete non-interventionist policy makes it impossible to meet these relatively new but crucial challenges (while it would really have avoided all the hassle we now call "cold war"), even though it surely is positive, if referred primarily to the Military (which, we know, have another way of seeing at the consequences and cost-gain issues), and accompanied by serious international cooperation policies (i strongly believe in the UN charter, but not in the way it is applied by now)... what do you think about it?

[Rick Toone]

Alberto — fair enough.

:)

You are the International Studies major, so explain your foreign policy theory, using our same "neighborhood" analogy. That will help keep the example clear and simple.

What would option #5 look like?

[Alberto Muti]

you give me a quirky task, believe it or not: i love using metaphors, but i never lived in the classical neighborhood, so please bear with me :
First of all, we need two assumptions:
There is no police that fights crime, or social assistency which takes care of families with problems: every house has its own internal rules, and that's it.
Second, this is a very nice neighborhood, but it has got some problems: apart from the fact that not all families and households are really faring well, there seems to be a nasty rat infestation, spreading from house to house, and if you just drive them away from your yard they will pop on again and again, sneaking in through your neighbour's fence. On top of that, some of the teenagers around are in that age in which they are not really part of their family, and have been on a bad streak, behaving badly, and lately they have even thrown a brick through someone's window. The other issue is that the grocery store round the corner, and the plumber everyone calls on, have started setting their own prices as they want to, and dumping their trash around. All of these problems are somewhat difficult to solve for single families.
I am really sorry for the somewhat gross metaphors for environmental problems, international crime and bad-behaving corporations, but i hopeit makes the idea.
If we stick to the "pater familias" metaphor, the usual Dad (governments) has to take into account a lil'bit too many "external pressures" to really care for all these problems, and maybe doesn't really want to anger the plumber or the grocery store owner.Not to mention, that the usual dad will be upset in having other people tell him how to run his family.
"option #5", in my opinion (and mind, i still am a student and, most importantly, i have the terrible flaw of idealism), goes like this:
There IS the Homeowner association, or a network of other similar beings (the Gardening Club, the volounteering association, the neighborhood committee) which DOES make a difference. For this to be happening, it must not just be a meeting points for the dads of every family: those committees are best working when run by the mothers, who usually take charge of accounting in the house, and making sure that everyone is fine, or by the Grown-up child who is now at the university (independent and educated, huh?).
When properly working, they cover the lack of the cops, or social assistance, by providing a similar authority.(about ingerences in internal affairs, to make it short: no one will tell you that it's wrong to spank your child, but locking him in the cellar for three days without food and light is NOT okay).
It's probably confused in some points, waaaay to long to be interesting and still oversimplifying, but i think it can be a rough basis of what i think about it.
Obviously, comments and debate are always more than welcome!