Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan fashioned Morality in Foreign Policy
In 1976, at the height of the Cold War, then-North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms and then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan added a new plank into the GOP platform — Morality in Foreign Policy. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Helms took the Declaration of Independence very seriously when it said “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” They believed that this was a claim that not only applied to Americans but also was a universal truth of human nature.
They believed that the United States should recognize that any violation of mankind’s natural rights in any country was an injustice. Just as one private citizen would be duty-bound to stop a robbery of another private citizen who was an utter stranger to them if it was both in his power and prudent, so too the US government has a moral impetus to oppose genocide or tyranny and take a firm international stand for human rights.
Morality in Foreign Policy is often assailed as a self-designated policeman of the world status. How can the United States afford to run about the globe saving and infantalizing all victims of injustice? This argument is nothing but a straw man.
Everyone agrees that Prudent Self-Interest is inherently a plank of foreign policy. Morality in Foreign Policy did not replace Prudent Self-Interest — merely served as an ideological counterbalance. Furthermore, military action is not the only way to act in accord with Morality in Foreign Policy. If the two planks conflict, then action would be inadvisable. For example, China’s barbarous One-Child forced abortion policy kills babies and traumatizes women — a radical human rights abuse. Morality in Foreign Policy would recommend that the United States use any means necessary to stop the policy — even military action. However, the geo-political situation would make such an action a radical violation of Prudent Self-Interest. Therefore no military action should be taken. However, that the Obama Administration has remained silent on the issue is disgraceful. It would be both moral and prudent to speak out sternly in solidarity with the victims.
On the other end of the spectrum, Michelle Bachmann in the GOP debate last night indicated that she supported reaping a payment from Iraq by force in exchange for our efforts to set up a democracy in their country and fighting a war on their behalf. She all but said that we should seize some of their oil. Mrs. Bachmann would do well to open a history book. The British Parliament said the exact same thing after their lavish expenditure to win the French and Indian War. Why not extract a payment from the Americans? What about a reasonable Tea Tax? The British were bewildered when this caused the American Revolution. Why did the colonists rebel? We all know the chant: “No Taxation without Representation!” If the English could elect a Parliament that could raise taxes on Americans without their consent, that meant that the Americans were not equal under the law with the English. A lack of equality was a violation of the natural rights of Americans. Would Michelle Bachmann duplicate the British Empire’s tactics by raising a tax on Iraquis without their consent? Although that certainly fits the bill of Prudent Self-Interest, it is a flagrant violation of Morality in Foreign Policy and should not be undertaken.
The Iraq War was undertaken largely based on the Morality in Foreign Policy plank — to stand up to a tyrant and bestow human rights. The Iraqis have built a democracy that guards their human rights. As George W. Bush predicted, this vision of a successful democracy in Iraq has caused Arabs to rise up across North Africa and the Middle East in the Arab Spring demanding their human rights. Does Mrs. Bachmann really believe we should abandon the American belief in human rights at this critical time? The Founders of this nation are rolling over in their graves. A candidate for President of the United States is actually advocating that we model our foreign policy on the once-hated British Empire.