There's a pattern developing in the United States' recent foreign relations. Every time an international crisis of some magnitude comes along, mainstream Democrats led by President Barack Obama, and their allies among realist Republicans, initially offer careful statements, eschewing the bombastic rhetoric of the Bush administration. Most Republicans, meanwhile, are still guided by neoconservative principals and demand harsh early judgment.
This demand for instant moral clarity on matters of foreign policy isn't a useful impulse and needs to be resisted if the new administration hopes to win the public debate over its new foreign policy. Rushing to judgment nearly always brushes aside the complexities of any specific situation, which while perhaps understandable when crafting campaign rhetoric, it is unhelpful to the actual execution of successful foreign policy. Even worse, it undermines the potential role of America's ideals abroad by promising too much, and often to the wrong people. Though picking sides is emotionally satisfying, it quickly becomes counter-productive. The United States needs a moral approach to the rest of the world, but one that is careful and well-considered.
Consider last summer's conflict between Georgia and Russia. After then-candidate Obama issued a careful statement calling for a cease-fire and a return to international norms, his opponent John McCain proclaimed that "We are all Georgians," even as a series of conservative pundits compared the conflict to Nazi Germany's 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland. But as the facts of the situation developed, it became clear that after Russian provocation, Georgia's sudden and rash attempt to seize the disputed territories at the center of the conflict ignited broader violence. Neither side acted wisely, and although Georgia is a nominal U.S. ally -- client state, really -- neither its leader nor Russia's are angels.
Now, nearly a year later, a status quo has been established in the disputed territories and very little has changed in either country. But had the United States followed conservative advice and turned a crisis into a full blown conflict, our ability to work with Russia, a powerful and oft-pernicious rival, on issues like Iranian nuclear proliferation and global economic recovery would be sorely hurt.
The same story repeated during the crisis surrounding the Iranian election. Obama, now president, issued a statement raising questions about the nature of the elections, calling on the Iranian government to heed the wishes of its people and reiterating that the United States doesn't make decisions on behalf of the Iranian people. Members of the Iranian opposition applauded the statement, knowing full well the negative consequences that would follow any perception that their movement was the pawn of foreign government -- and perhaps remembering the lesson of Iraq's brief Shi'ite revolt after the Gulf War, when aid promised to the opposition by the United States never materialized.
But once again conservatives demanded stronger words and harsher condemnation --ignoring not only the potential for backlash against the opposition but also the nature of the opposition itself. To be clear, the Green movement is one that Americans can proudly offer their solidarity to, one supporting democracy and human rights, which is why Obama appropriately sharpened his rhetoric as the Iranian regime escalated violence against demonstrators. But it is also an Islamist movement and, in power, would pursue a nuclear weapons program and other policies antithetical to global stability and American interests. As Iran continues to remain unsettled, the U.S. government needs to prepare for all outcomes.
A more ambiguous case comes in the form of the recent coup in Honduras, where the military removed President Manuel Zelaya from office after he persisted in pursuing an illegal constitutional referendum to gain additional time in office. There's no question that Zelaya's referendum was unwise and that he has been an ally to bombastically anti-American Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But supporting a military coup whose early actions have included severe restrictions of civil liberties is not in the best interests of international stability or democracy in Honduras -- and plays right into Chavez's critique of American hypocrisy.
The Obama administration has called for a return to democratic process and the reinstatement of Zelaya, encouraging Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to mediate. Conservatives in Congress, meanwhile have pushed resolutions condemning Zelaya and supporting the coup -- just the thing the United States needs to restore its image as a supporter of democracy.
This tendency to sweep away complexity hasn't just seen the endorsement of right-wing military juntas -- that's merely the 1980s all over again. It's also led conservative pundit Andy McCarthy to cheerfully side with China's Communist government in their recent brutal crackdown on protesting members of China's Muslim Uighur ethnic minority, apparently because a handful of Uighurs were held by the United States as potential terrorist supporters, though a judge has ordered their release. McCarthy's strange position led libertarian journalist Radley Balko to aptly observe "there was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies." But when you're in the business of taking simplistic positions, sometimes things can get a bit … confusing.
The United States doesn't have to take sides in every world conflict while neatly labeling the players "good" and "bad" -- we need to support the institutions that provide global stability and ideals that underpin the American system, all while carefully protecting our interests. True, this is easier said than done, but it's much harder when the overriding impulse of one of our main political parties is to pick a winner prima facie and try to justify their choice retroactively, especially in a world where our interests already force us into awkward partnerships with authoritarian regimes. Today, restraint should be the watchword of U.S. foreign policy -- promises and strong positions should only come when we have the will and strategic capacity to see them through.
