Morgenthau's Argument Against Promotive Foreign Policy

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

It is well known that the United States have been seen internationally as a key actor, for better or worse, when it comes to the field of universal human rights. At the same time, recent events have shown a disassociation between the words and actions of the nation. Despite the fact that these rights are supposed to be constitutionally-protected, the United States has been criticized for repeatedly violating them not only in the past but in recent memory: criminalization of poverty and homelessness, violation of the privacy of citizens all over the world, racism, police brutality, the prison-for-profit system, mistreatment or even torture of the prisoners. These are just some examples of the most common forms of human rights violations

After World War 2, faith in the United States government was at an all time high. A brief, superficial, and weak understanding of the history on the aftermath of World War 2 leads the reader to understand that not only did the United States help defeat the evil Nazis, the fascist Italians, and the imperial Japanese. In the wake of World War 2, the United States of America ended up cementing itself as a world power – if not the world power, usurping the empty throne previously held by Great Britain and subsequently sharing it with the Soviet Union. Yet as is typical, there can never be two champions. There can never be two reigning super victors – one of the two powers had to lose. So began the conflict that never was, the cold war – a global chess match of attrition. Neither the USSR nor the USA would outright engage in conflicts with one another, but in the thirst and pursuit for more influence and power, they continually opposed each other through pawn states on a global scale for approximately 44 years. This type of warfare was known as ‘proxy’ warfare, and though the dates specifically for the Cold War are not known, the common dates for the war range from 1947 to 1991. With this understanding, it can also be inferred that it was not just a war for power, it was a war of ideologies.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

President Jimmy Carter declared in his inaugural address that the US’s “commitment towards human rights must be absolute”. Human rights under Carter were anything but absolute. Under his presidency, the US sent contradictory messages: one opposing human rights violations and another which seemed to overlook human rights abuses. The issue of human rights was not Carter’s only priority. In reality, human rights ended up being one of many of the Carter administration priorities. All of these foci collided, and left Carter with no real center to his foreign policy.

During WWII, our relationship with the Soviets was a partnership of convenience – part of the allied arrangement necessary to defeat Hitler. During the war, Roosevelt visualized a post war order that would be policed by the new world superpowers – U.S., China, Britain and the Soviet Union would all maintain peace and order within their world region (Avey, 2012). In spite of U.S. recognition that the Soviets were committed to an expansionist effort in post-war Europe, the United States retained a policy of restraint keeping to Roosevelt's idea that the Soviets would do the right thing. During the Truman administration, and as Soviet expansionism increased, the U.S. policies became less cordial and grew more confrontational. The change in our behavior was not factored on a collision of ideology with the Soviets, it was based on the balance of power (Avey, 2012). I think this is extremely relevant to today's global discourse and because we have squandered and marginalized our own world status, we have allowed other groups to fill

Throughout the semester Joseph Nye’s signature concepts of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power have been analyzed amongst the backdrop of U.S. foreign relations. ‘Hard power’ is the use of “coercion i.e. military and economic means to influence the behavior of other political bodies” (Hudson). This contrasts to ‘Soft power’ which is the use of “attraction to produce desired foreign policy results [by focusing] on three key resources: culture, political values, and foreign policies” (Hudson). Through the wielding and usage of the tools of ‘soft power’ ideas about U.S. values and culture have been able to attract partners and support to Washington without the use of force and/or threat of further war and atrocity. Due to this fact it appears ‘soft power’ is more integral to influencing foreign relations, especially when considering the effects of actions such as President Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of a Committee on Public Information, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Speech, and President Harry Truman’s support for the Marshall Plan.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s inquiry into Australia’s Regional Dialogue on Human rights asserts that the promotion and protection of human rights is important to Australia’s broader security and economic interests, but moreover, these interests are “inextricably linked to the stability and economic prosperity of the Asia Pacific region.” Given that human rights violations are major threats to regional security and stability, the prevention of such violations, and the resolution of continuing crises, must be central in Australia’s relations with the

Some critics believe that the U.S. should have no part in protecting these rights. The critics would like to see Americas interests protected first. If the U.S. involves herself, she must come to the aid of all because “no one else has the reach and resources to do the job”(Sands 3). At the same time Sands says that the U.S. “may not impose its will”(2) on other countries and erase centuries of hate and feuding, but it must do what it can to help the feuding ethnic groups to reconcile their differences. Experts on foreign affairs from both parties say “the United States must be engaged in hot spots around the world”(Sands 2). We have the power and the capability to help many of the nations that are suffering and being oppressed, therefore we must use it to help.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

Unimaginable five years earlier, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1991 was, as historian George Herring asserted, “an event as momentous in its ramifications as it was anticlimactic in its occurrence.” Soviet Premier Gorbachev’s dual policies of glasnost and perestroika had relaxed central control and encouraged self-sufficiency among the republics of Eastern Europe, but it also revealed the underlying economic weakness of the Soviet system. The collapse of the Soviet Union sent shockwaves through a U.S. foreign policy establishment that had, for decades, overwhelmingly focused on the containment of the Soviet Union. Lacking the fundamental organizing principle that the Cold War provided, both the Bush and Clinton administrations struggled to put forth a consistent foreign policy strategy. Each administration reacted differently to the reality of a world without a central adversary, and each made critical missteps. U.S. foreign policy during the first post-Cold War decade was at times tentative and inconsistent as foreign policy authorities sought a dominant organizing principle to shape its strategy.

In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.