As mentioned countless times before, Morgenthau's presentation of realism as it pertains to the international political arena has been a point of focal interest for analysis of the actions of many countries. In his work titled "Another Great Debate: The National Interest of the United States", we see a further emphasis of the presence of realism in the actions that were dictated by the foreign policy of America. This was perhaps the time where Morgenthau started to lose favor with Washington due to his stance against their actions.
The premise of realism stands on very visible grounds; its studies what is as opposed to what can be. Realism has always pushed the notion that nations are a collective existence that push for their own security, power and survival. This seems to be the case with America more so than other states. American foreign policy can always be examined through this particular lens, and it would not be an understatement that the thirst to forward their own political agendas has always been at the forefront for the American state. How else can one truly explain their presence in Iran, Afghanistan or even parts of Pakistan? Do their moral standards not withstand their want for increasing their sphere of influence?
Many of their foreign overtures were labelled morally correct on grounds of humanitarian efforts. Surely, in the wake of their actions in these areas, those moral grounds seemed to have never been part of the plan. It seems to have been all been a search for resources and increasing political clout. Therefore, in the light of all such considerations, it is safe to say that American foreign policy was aimed at increasing their sphere of influence, politically as well as in material form, and human considerations of well being was put to the background on the most part.
The premise of realism stands on very visible grounds; its studies what is as opposed to what can be. Realism has always pushed the notion that nations are a collective existence that push for their own security, power and survival. This seems to be the case with America more so than other states. American foreign policy can always be examined through this particular lens, and it would not be an understatement that the thirst to forward their own political agendas has always been at the forefront for the American state. How else can one truly explain their presence in Iran, Afghanistan or even parts of Pakistan? Do their moral standards not withstand their want for increasing their sphere of influence?
Many of their foreign overtures were labelled morally correct on grounds of humanitarian efforts. Surely, in the wake of their actions in these areas, those moral grounds seemed to have never been part of the plan. It seems to have been all been a search for resources and increasing political clout. Therefore, in the light of all such considerations, it is safe to say that American foreign policy was aimed at increasing their sphere of influence, politically as well as in material form, and human considerations of well being was put to the background on the most part.
I agree with the argument you put forth because history bears testimony to the fact that every country immerses itself in the race for survival because it feels the need to survive. The Social Darwinist phenomenon is therefore applicable to the United States where their foreign policy is conditioned by the need to establish hegemony. Although survival and hegemony are two very different driving forces behind foreign policy, they both encourage a form of cannibalism. It would therefore be relevant to state that every aspect of American foreign policy and national interests are ultimately cannibalistic in nature as they inevitably either limit or completely obstruct the development of other nations.
ReplyDeleteBasically you argue that U.S. foreign policy is predicated on realist principles. I agree.
ReplyDelete