RATIONAL
SELF-INTEREST
A typical, initial American reaction is to be somewhat surprised, particularly at the intensity of all this but also to yawn. We’ve been here before. Nothing being said is terribly new, at least with respect to the policies of the United States government. We expect to be painted as the “bad guy”, the American Cowboy but with a black hat. Except when saving European nations’ scrawny derrieres, America has been subjected to this policy criticism by the Euros for virtually the entire adult lifetime of us all. Similarly, the Russians and Chinese have rarely been accommodating unless it was for some big trade deal which benefitted them. Americans generally just wait these things out, letting it ride so to speak. We’re doing the same today but, I believe, with a difference. We are less likely to forget this time around. I don’t know about you, but I no longer buy French products. I avoid Chinese and German purchases. I have closed down that part of my law practice assisting Chinese asylum candidates to enter this country. (This is sometimes known as putting your money where your mouth is). I will not change. Nevertheless, while disappointed at the actions of these countries, I do not believe they have taken these steps lightly. France’s Monsieur le President may be a worm (ver) but he is not a stupid worm. Treacherous certainly; dumb certainly not. Nor is there any evidence that any of these foreign leaders is dumb. We may think them wrong but should not think them dumb. In fact, these are the serious, calculated acts of intelligent and mature politicians. But still, we are surprised. Why? I think that the essence of the answer has to do with motivation. The leaders of Old Europe, Russia, China et al, think of foreign policy in terms of what is in the rational self-interest of their respective country. American governments tend to think more of values and somewhat less of rational self-interest. For example, these columns have agreed with administration critics about oil being a reason for war. We have consistently argued that it is “a” reason, not “the” reason. We further argue that oil represents the sine qua non of the Western world’s economies and it cannot be ignored. But, were we motivated solely by oil, we could offer Hussein deals like this: you stay in power; you sell us oil at $17.50 a barrel; you sell it to other nations at $25 per barrel; we’ll take all the oil you can produce. Hussein would take that deal in a heartbeat; he would do anything to stay alive and to remain in power. Add to that having the United States as his major customer and protector and he’d be in his version of Heaven. Hussein would convert to Judaism for that deal and nuke Arafat in the bargain. Alternatively, were Hussein to offer that deal to Bush, my sense is that Bush would turn Hussein down flat. Bush is motivated by far more than oil, even though $17.50 per barrel for the American economy would be a super shot in its currently flabby arm. The French would take that deal and Germany be damned. The Germans would understand too. They wouldn’t be happy but, at least, they would understand. If they could, they’d do it to the French or any other country. It is we who do not understand. And that is because our objective are not motivated solely by rational self-interest. We have other, value based motivations. There is, however, a new sense of American self-interest abroad in our land. It is reflected in the President’s blunt foreign policy positions. `Hussein disarms or we will disarm him.’ `We do not need U.N. approval.’ `You are either with us or with the terrorists.’ Agree with them or not, these are statements of American rational self-interest. They are not different in kind from France’s opposite or contary positions or Turkey’s conscious, intentional parliamentarian choice not to lease military bases for American troops to use against Iraq. So be it. Conduct, like ideas, has consequences. If Turkey refuses to lease its bases, we could decide to cease our lobbying for it to be part of the EU/NATO groups. We could refuse to train Turkish military people in the United States or to provide them with new technology. We could, instead, train Kurds. We could support Kurdish self-determination. We could (and should) keep the Turks, French, Germans, Russian and Chinese from any share of business generated by the new Iraq. We once were a self-interest foreign policy nation. It is time to return to those days of yesteryear, to our historical roots. I believe we arrived at our present policy as a result of the failure of the League of Nations which appeared to many of us to lead directly to World War II. Thus, having stayed out of the League, we went head first into the United Nations as the venue to keep the world at peace. We were then generous to a fault in rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan and Japan under the leadership of Douglas MacArthur. It is now 50 years on; half a century plus; two generations have passed and the present generation has a short view of history. It is long enough, probably too long for us. Nevertheless, all the world’s nations are now on their own, speaking in their own self-interest. So too should we. It is, of course, the natural order of men and women to seek their own self-interest. At the national level, it is merely writ larger. This precept is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence which terms it “the pursuit of happiness”. Let
the French be French and the rest be as they choose. Use persuasion
or whatever reasonable means are available to bring a nation to our
point of view. Compromise here and there. But always, in the end,
do what we believe is right for us. All others do. |