A Matter of Right and Wrong

A Matter of Right and Wrong

It is often the case in matters of politics and international relations that different schools of thought yield quite different and even contradictory points of view. For those who see international relations as a zero-sum game, such conflict and discord is politically expected, perhaps even acceptable. After all, there must always be a player in the international arena whose losses offset the gains of the winner. If a truly progressive international relations paradigm is to be advanced, however, cross-school discourse must be governed by a new endgame - namely, finding ways to set aside competing interests and assumptions in favor of arriving at mutually agreeable policy elements. As a possible example, everyone can agree, including realists and neoliberals, that there is no difference between secret political intervention to affect the politics of countries and overt intervention to promote human rights or democracy. The issue, more exactly, is whether it is right to intervene or not; the choice of instruments is secondary.

The Myth of American Repression

According to the realist assumptions of conservative thinkers like Samuel P. Huntington, international relations strategies and policy decisions are fundamentally a function of the global and relative power equation. Specifically, Huntington recognizes that America has a unique and unmatched power in the world. And further, he realizes that American power gains in the international space are almost always offset by the losses of other nations. Despite this obvious zero-sum game, Huntington refutes the claim that American intervention in foreign countries "is almost invariably hostile to liberty and supportive of repression in these societies" (“Human Rights” 37). America, in Huntington’s estimate, is the best example of the democratic form in the world. The country is governed and ruled by an integral system of institutions that are adept in protecting the basic liberties and freedoms of the people. By extension, nobody should expect that when the United States government chooses to intervene in a foreign land the result will be anti-democratic or subversive to the charge and defense of basic human rights. As history shows, in fact, when American power has impacted other societies, the effect has generally been “to further liberty, pluralism, and democracy" (“Human Rights” 37). Thus, the claim of American repression amounts to little or nothing more than a myth in the mind of realist thinkers like Huntington. Therefore, as Huntington would see it, there is no difference exists between secret political intervention to affect the politics of countries and overt intervention to promote human rights or democracy. The issue is whether it is right to intervene or not; the choice of instruments is secondary.

Absolute, Not Relative Power Gains

In contrast to realism, liberal thinkers like Morton H. Halperin believe that nation-states should be concerned about relative power gains, not absolute gains. In so many words, this means that international relations decisions should be guided by the idea that the interests of nation-states are inextricably connected. The complex interdependence proposition of neoliberalism does not fully contradict realist balance of power assertions. But it does downplay the importance of the realist zero-sum game in favor of viewing cooperation as not only vital in the international and global arena but literally an existential imperative. Even further, Halperin believes that the United States is a preeminent leader in the world with special responsibilities for spreading and advancing democracy. As a matter of policy strategy for ensuring the propagation and protection of democracy in the world, Halperin espouses the idea that support for democracy should be guided according to an international guarantee clause – that is, one not unlike the two-hundred year old U.S. Guarantee Clause. He says, in fact:

Those who find the idea of an international guarantee clause utopian should be reminded that a Southerner at the time of the American Constitutional Convention might have had the same reaction to the U.S. Guarantee Clause. The two-century-old promise to defend a republican form of government within each state...has become a model for the international community today. (Halperin 121)

Halperin’s formula for advancing democracy in the world amounts to a constitutional transformation strategy – one that he conceives as being “intended to combine the best of American idealism and realism” (Halperin 122). Therefore, according this his thoughts, it can be said that no difference exists between secret political intervention to affect the politics of countries and overt intervention to promote human rights or democracy. The issue is whether it is right to intervene or not; the choice of instruments is secondary.

Universal Norms versus Civilized Nation Ascendancy

In contrast to the realist idea that the international relations space is effectively one of anarchy, the intervention rationale of neoliberals is largely based on the belief that the propagation of universal norms is the proper and desirable endgame. Along these lines, Halperin insists that America has a moral duty and obligation of sorts to advance democracy everywhere in the world. He says, in fact, that the "United States should take the lead in promoting the trend toward democracy [because] democratic governments are more peaceful and less given to provoking war or inciting violence" (Halperin 105). Conservative thinkers like Huntington would not disagree with the claim that democratic republics are more stable and capable in supporting peace in the world. Since the end of World War II, in fact, the United States and other nations have extended democratic principles and liberties with unprecedented speed and effectiveness. Whereas Halperin and neoliberal thinkers believe that democratic change and order must be advanced through the propagation of norms, Huntington would, however, still hold to the realist assumption of realpolitik – i.e., practical considerations as the means to an end rather than ideological considerations. Even though Halperin and Huntington believe in the merits and virtues of democracy, Huntington vehemently disagrees with the idea that non-Western "peoples should adopt Western values, institutions, and culture" ("Peace among Civilizations" 647). In fact, he views such an idea as being as immoral. It, thereby, becomes morally incumbent on the so-called civilized nations, the actual power brokers of the world, to ensure the ascendancy of democracy and, hence, peaceful world order. In short, the differing means of Halperin and Huntington do not negate the fact that both thinkers believe in democracy as an end in itself. Both thinkers would, therefore, agree that no difference exists between secret political intervention to affect the politics of countries and overt intervention to promote human rights or democracy. The issue is whether it is right to intervene or not; the choice of instruments is secondary.

Doing What is Best for Humanity

In some respects, realism and liberalism are two different sides to the same coin because both schools of thought concern themselves with the concept of power, ideas about democracy, and the roles of nation-states and lesser actors. The basic viewpoints and assumptions on these matters differ significantly, even contrastingly, however. Realists tend to marginalize and even ignore the role of lesser actors in favor of recognizing nation-states as the key players in the international arena. Neoliberals, on the other hand, view cooperation and interdependence among states and transnational actors, even non-governmental agencies (NGOs), as vital to international and global order. Despite the conceptual differences, it is conceivable to set aside competing interests and assumptions of realists and neoliberals in favor of arriving at mutually agreeable policy elements. As a universal moral principle, the end should never justify the means. It, thereby, becomes irrelevant whether or not one believes that American intervention is repressive or not. It does not matter whether one believes in absolute or relative power gains. And even more, it is unimportant whether one believes that ideology or power advances national interests. What matters is that both realists and neoliberals believe in the values and virtues of democracy. Therefore, it should not make any difference as to what tools are used to advance democracy and human rights, it is a matter of doing what is best for humanity.

Conclusion

In the final statement, the current discussion has illustrated the point that everyone can agree, including realists and neoliberals, that there is no difference between secret political intervention to affect the politics of countries and overt intervention to promote human rights or democracy. Some claim that American intervention into the politics and affairs of other nations is repressive. But as Huntington shows, repression amounts to little or nothing more than a myth. Halperin effectively illustrates that the best of American idealism and realism can be combined. Both thinkers further believe in democracy as an end in itself. As for possible common ground between the two political schools of thought, perhaps Samuel P. Huntington puts it best in suggesting that “the futures of both peace and civilization depend upon understanding and cooperation among the political, spiritual, and intellectual leaders of the world's major civilizations" ("Peace among Civilizations" 654). When it comes to interventions, the primary issue, in other words, is not the choice of instruments, the issue is whether it is right to intervene or not.

Works Cited

Halperin, Morton H “Guaranteeing Democracy.” Foreign Policy, vol. 91, 1993, pp. 105-122.

Huntington, Samuel P. “Peace Among Civilizations?” in Betts, R.K. (ed). Conflict After the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace, 3rd edition. New York: Pearson-Longman. 2008.

“Human Rights and American Power.” Commentary, vol. 72, no. 3, 1981, pp. 37-48.