When we thought that the era of great debates had culminated and we laid it all to rest, Hans Morgenthau awakened us from our naivety and presented us with the duplicity of American foreign relations. In 'Another "Great Debate": The National Interests of the United States, Morgenthau points at the core issue around which all the great debates revolved around: foreign policy. He draws upon from the two contesting schools of thought which differ in their conception of the nature of man, politics and society in order to describe the continual struggle of power, egocentric nature of state and the affinity between politics and morality.
Morgenthau sheds light on the chicanery that forms the foundation of American foreign relations. To say US foreign policy followed "humanitarian and pacifist traditions" would be ignorant of the balance of power politics that prevailed historically and which follows in through the current date. It would also be guileless to presume that American statesmen did not have a vested interest in pursuing its foreign policy from the beginning of time till date. Morgentahu systematically dismantles Americans 'so called' humanitarian pursuits unveiling the power struggle that US was involved in. In doing so he also provides us with analyzing US foreign policy in the status quo. He highlights the deception that US statesmen operate with: propagating virtuous ideals to the world on the one hand, while simultaneously using the same ideals to interfere in the affairs of other countries for the global good, when indeed it is for the pursuit of America's national interest. Then again, national interests are contingent upon circumstances and time, and cannot remain stagnant or be a common norm. interest
It is sheer absurdity to subscribe to the moral justifications that states give for their actions and the public foolishly accepts, as is folly of accepting that the national interests are actually reflective of the 'whole' of the nation.
Morgenthau sheds light on the chicanery that forms the foundation of American foreign relations. To say US foreign policy followed "humanitarian and pacifist traditions" would be ignorant of the balance of power politics that prevailed historically and which follows in through the current date. It would also be guileless to presume that American statesmen did not have a vested interest in pursuing its foreign policy from the beginning of time till date. Morgentahu systematically dismantles Americans 'so called' humanitarian pursuits unveiling the power struggle that US was involved in. In doing so he also provides us with analyzing US foreign policy in the status quo. He highlights the deception that US statesmen operate with: propagating virtuous ideals to the world on the one hand, while simultaneously using the same ideals to interfere in the affairs of other countries for the global good, when indeed it is for the pursuit of America's national interest. Then again, national interests are contingent upon circumstances and time, and cannot remain stagnant or be a common norm. interest
It is sheer absurdity to subscribe to the moral justifications that states give for their actions and the public foolishly accepts, as is folly of accepting that the national interests are actually reflective of the 'whole' of the nation.
Basically the U.S. follows its own interests, but those interests aren't necessarily representative of the entire national interests, right? This is why lobby groups influence policy. Ultimately, though, the U.S. acts in whatever it considers to be its own self-interests at any given point in time.
ReplyDelete