MATTHEW BISHOP - 2 MARCH 2011

It does not make sense to consider valid the rhetoric of U.S. isolationism in a world where the entire American structure depends on global work, global security, and global economy. Our oil comes from a host of different nations. Our food is exported around the world. Our financial services and higher education attract people from across the earth, while our businesses turn international and become cornerstones for other nations' economies. Our students travel the world and globalize themselves, or live abroad teaching English. Our lifestyle is global, whether or not we as individuals acknowledge ourselves as global, and to discuss isolationism is to ignore who we are and upon which structures our nation, our security, and our economy are built.

This essay focuses on the ideals of interventionism v isolationism as a whole, and not specifically in regards to the military. This essay is more concerned with foreign aid and crisis prevention, and does support "trimming down the military" in the many places where a military presence is not necessary and will not be in the near future. There are a host of reasons and underlying beliefs that isolationists or noninterventionists offer to explain why we should remain "uncommitted" or "uninvolved" in global affairs, and this paper will address them as it mentions them. These are:

1) The underlying belief that it is morally acceptable to remain uninvolved politically in regards to crisis areas or target issues with which U.S. companies are already involved with economically. (More common than this belief is the outright failure to realize that political disengagement does not mean commercial disengagement, and along with this failed realization proponents of isolationism also fail to realize that international commercial policies have extremely adverse and at times extremely violent effects among foreign populations.)

            - In this case, isolationism is nothing but irresponsibility and a failure to accept the humanitarian burdens that go hand-in-hand with ethical business policies. To permit a company to work abroad, for example, and then to say that no human responsibility is involved, is to allow for forced labor, slave labor, dangerous working conditions, and in the worst cases the emergence or continuance of war or genocide. Foreign governments that depend on U.S. investment are less willing and less able to enforce human rights policies in the workplace. The responsibility, therefore, lies with the investor. This applies to private companies, but it also applies to organizations like the World Bank and IMF.

2) The underlying belief that each nation should be responsible for itself only.

            - This is a fallacy in itself. Nations that depend on one another for trade, growth, and jobs, in being responsible for themselves, must acknowledge these connections and then be responsible for the well-being of others. The well-being of others, in turn, supports the well-being of the nation. Autarkic trade policies have failed in the past, are inconceivable in the present, and are not worthy of consideration in the near future.

3) The moral disconnect between nationals of one nation and nationals of another nation, leading to the belief that one American life is ultimately far more significant than the life of any non-American individual. Resulting from this belief is the argument that Americans should not involve themselves in cases of genocide or other widescale human atrocities and crimes against humanity, even, in a rather hypocritical situation, when Americans teach a "never again" story of the Holocaust in public schools. This also leads to the reluctance to attempt to even understand foreign problems, and the refusal to accept valid solutions for these crises even at minimal cost to the United States.

            - This argument sustains itself on its own self-invented moral tenants, which are often racist, more often hypocritical, and always inconsiderate of human lives. It is a valid argument in a world where one human has absolutely no interest or obligation in saving the life of another human. It seems natural for any decent and caring human being to reject this argument outright by denying the truth of this worldview and by insisting that humans do hold a natural human obligation to help and care for one another.

4) An aversion to military intervention unless "state security" or "economic interest" is involved.

            - Military policies toward situations that are already military or which involve genocide, crimes against humanity, etc., do legitimately merit military responses. The Law of Proportion should always be adhered to in these cases-- if only 2,000 lives are at stake, for instance, we should not risk 2,500 in saving them. Conversely, if 12,000,000 lives are at stake, it is a valid and defensible policy to intervene in real military terms.

            - "State Security" and "Economic Interest" are generally defined by individuals and organizations in positions of power and, contrary to popular belief, they actually do reflect the interests of those organizations and individuals rather than the actual and legitimate interests of the nation. It was not in the interests of security to invade Iraq, it was the personal vendetta of GWB and his colleagues. It is not in the interests of security to maintain an aggressive and nuclear Israel on an American budget, it is in the interest of well-funded Zionist fundamentalist organizations like AIPAC. "Economic interest" policies frequently result in mass impoverishment, displacement, and starvation in other countries-- a well-explored example is American farm subsidy policies and international trade policies. These are rhetorical tools utilized by quasi-isolationists that do not account for the real reasons or consequences of American actions.

5) The idea that costs for foreign aid and interventionist programs could be better applied on the home front, and that causes abroad mirror causes at home that are not being given due attention. A common argument in this vein of thought goes something like this: "Why are we feeding children in Africa when there are kids starving here in the United States?"

            - There have been no reported deaths due to starvation anywhere in the United States for many years now. The United States wastes more food than any other nation, and its residents are the most well-fed in the world. Meanwhile, one third of the human population lives malnourished, undernourished, or on the outright brink of starvation.

            - This argument is valid in regards to certain issue areas. Surely Egypt does not need three billion a year to keep it from attacking Israel? Surely Israel does not need three billion a year to keep it from being destroyed by rock-throwing Palestinian teenagers? Surely Pakistan does not require three billion to fight the Taliban when they are actually training the Taliban? Surely Ethiopia does not deserve 2-3 billion to feed its people when it continually uses those funds to distinguish between political allies, who it will feed, and political enemies, who the state decides to let starve? An overhaul of foreign aid is needed. But there are many crisis areas in the world right now that deserve much more funding; Sudan/South Sudan and DR Congo come to mind the most. The overhaul should carry with it renewed efforts at transparency and requirements for inspectors. All things considered, however, this is the most valid of the arguments against isolationism, if only because so many funds abroad get wasted or lost in channels of official government corruption. This is a difficult problem, as many of the weakest governments, in need of the most aid, are also the most corrupt, so lending x amount of money in aid only actually delivers x-y amount to the people in need of that aid. This is why transparency and inspection must become pillars of a new foreign aid policy.

6) The reliance on the false idea that America invests a huge proportion of its resources to foreign aid.

            - In fact, the United States frequently spends only around 1% of its budget on foreign aid, whereas the Department of Defense, in FY 2011, spent an amazing 19% of the United States Federal Budget. This should be the opposite, if we comprehend the now common knowledge that prosperity breeds peace and stability. Trimming down the military, which operates bases around the world that it does not require and maintains bases that are not even occupied, should be a much more pressing discussion than trimming down aid, the little of which we do give generally goes toward preventing large-scale civil wars, setting up refugee camps in war-torn areas, securing allegiances, and providing disaster relief. All of these efforts bolster our security by showing the world that America is not just some collection of heartless military operations that they should hate and fight against.

7) The belief that we can't solve other people's problems.

            - Yes, we can. As a wealthy, strong, and ideally independent third-party mediator, we are actually in an ideal position to do so. We need to engage problems on the terms in which they actually exist, and not drag them through the machine of US partisan politics and so distort their reality. Distorting their reality prevents them from being solved. This is the only real conceptual requirement to address "other people's problems". A lot of problems are actually quite simple, and can be overcome by human cooperation. It is only the refusal to cooperate that creates and sustains problems. When we are cooperating and behaving as a single unit, we gain the power to help really mediate and solve "other people's problems." This should be the theory with which we approach mediation. Realistically it will require legal, structural, and budget reform within our own government and in regards to foreign policy, and will also require a dedicated effort on all sides of the political spectrum to actually understand and solve specific world problems, a motivation that Congress usually seems to be rather unfamiliar with.

8) The understanding that it is natural for parts of the world to pass through traumatic stages and that part of a nation's or the world's evolution is to evolve through phases of war and genocide

            - This is a disgusting argument to anyone who fully comprehends it. We should not put an end to the summary mass execution of unarmed civilians because "it just happens" and we "have to get over it"? No, I won't get over it. I would not expect any Holocaust survivor to "get over it" and tell me that "it just happens". I would not expect anyone in the eastern DRC or South Sudan or Darfur, 1970's Cambodia or 1990's Rwanda to tell me that I should "just move on" and "forget about it, because it happens to everyone." It should not happen to anyone. People who use this argument have no idea of what they are talking about. There is nothing "natural" about walking for 300 meters on corpses without touching the ground. There is nothing "natural" about seeing baby brains smeared on the floor. There is nothing natural about being forced at gunpoint to pick up your father and throw him into an incinerator and watch him burn. The people who use this argument don't understand what "trauma" even is.

            - The fulfillment of "Never Again" requires constant vigilance. This means that when genocide or crimes against humanity are witnessed, we are obligated to act. If one part of the world is experiencing a phase in its history ridden with war, crime, and inhuman atrocities, then it is the duty of another part of the world, experiencing peace, power, stability, and far-reaching influence, to stop that crime in its tracks.

9) "They should just move"

            - That would be convenient. Cattle-herders cannot find land for their cattle in another person's property in another country. Farmers who struggle every day cannot leave a season's harvest to find another nation. Emigration and immigration policies often forbid moving in very rigid legal terms. These are the reasons people do not flee before conflict.  Once conflict is upon them, the story changes. Conflict can confound these arguments. Conflict can burn the farmer's field, or kill his cattle, and can even burn his home and steal the money from his own pocket. So why don't people move in anticipation of this scenario?

            It is in human nature not to move. Humans generally believe that good things happen to good people and that they themselves are more invulnerable to attack than others. In general, they overestimate the likelihood of positive events and underestimate the likelihood of negative events. They also understand the world as meaningful and as operating with certain rules, religious or otherwise, that prevent bad things from happening arbitrarily to good people. These beliefs and precepts create a certain naivety about reality-- "the soldiers might come nextdoor, but they have no reason to come here," or "Whatever happens is God's will, so I am staying here." There is often, as well, an element of denial. For instance, even when rural Jewish communities were warned of the Holocaust by survivors trying to alert them, they would refuse to believe that the Holocaust would reach them. After all, they were only a small rural community and were not bothering anyone-- why should anyone want to bother them?
Furthermore, a very significant part of human meaning and perception of life as meaningful derives from the value of close family and/or friends, or in some cases other human networks. These networks are almost always confined to close psychical spaces and uprooting oneself is extremely difficult; conversely, it is very difficult to uproot the entire network. All of these factors combined lead many individuals to dismiss "just moving" as a possibility at all, much less a viable option.

A Featured Essay for the Autumn 2011 Quarterly Release
by Director Matthew Bishop (Ohio, U.S.A.) and Far East Asia Regional Director Baron Laudermilk (Beijing, China)
Edited by Director Matthew Bishop

ABSTRACT:
The 2012 Foreign Policy Action Plan covers grand strategy and particular policy suggestions for Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and also engages ideas for reforming global governing, judicial, and economic institutions.

BIO:
Matthew Bishop is the Founder and Director of World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs, Managing Editor for this release and the chief author of this document. His concentration is in the rhetoric of social and political change. Baron Laudermilk is the Far East Regional Director and Chief Secretary of the journal and a regular staff researcher and writer. His focus is in Chinese government and economy.

A Featured Essay for the Autumn 2011 Quarterly Release
by Nick McIntosh (Ohio, U.S.A.)
Edited by Director Matthew Bishop

ABSTRACT:
NATO, despite the end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, has soldiered on into the 2010’s. Though many attempts have been made to understand its continuation, few have incorporated the lessons learned from America’s behavior prior to the Iraq War to properly understand the U.S. and its interest in keeping such an organization alive. Drawing from Ian Hurd’s "After Anarchy", I propose a mutually beneficial model for both the hegemon and Europe that functions off of a legitimacy filtration relationship. By using NATO as a multilateral international community, the U.S. is able to administer its foreign policy through the community to give the illusion that actions taken by NATO are beneficial to all member nations and the global community. In return, European members are able to free-ride on the hegemon’s military expenditures without having to build a defense on their own dime. I further conclude that such a model, though accurate as it stands now, is not stable. If NATO is to remain a viable institution, America must cede at least some of its predominance in decisionmaking to maintain the organization’s legitimacy output. Further, Europe must build its own defenses rather than remaining a protectorate of the hegemon.

BIO:
Nick McIntosh is a political science and philosophy double-major undergraduate at Ohio University with an academic focus in Law, Justice, and Political Thought. 

11 JULY 2011 - MATTHEW BISHOP 
 
 A critical look into the US decision to pull back 800,000,000 USD in annual funding to Pakistan. This leaves roughly 1.2 billion USD in US aid to Pakistan per year.

This is a most precarious situation. If Pakistan is not already a failed state, it is very close to becoming one. The recent mob violence in Karachi, which claimed nearly a hundred lives this past weekend, is but one small testament. The greater testaments are the undeniable links between the ISI and Al Qaeda, between the government of Pakistan and the Taliban, and the fact that much of “Pakistan’s land” is not actually controlled, and in some cases not even monitored, by the Pakistani government—these include the most violent of territories in the north and west of the country. Construct upon this backdrop a party of Pakistani people who wish to bring the United States into closer and more harmonious relations, and you have the context for a civil war.

I had a professor of political science and counterterrorism tell me once that he has never seen a nation as close to civil war as Pakistan is now, and that is not a light or arbitrary statement. Much of Pakistan is not controlled by the Pakistani government. Much of Karachi is not even controlled by the government. People who need schools and hospitals regularly go without them, not even aware that there is some central government whose theoretical obligation is to provide those services. There are those in government who want to put more funding in these tribal areas, then there are those who would ignore them. There are those who would embrace the United States, then there are those who would push the US away. There is, almost unanimously, a feeling that United States is too heavily involved and must “back off”, and Pakistanis can unite behind this call. Yet behind this veil of unity there is division. The cutting of US funding brings all of these questions and more to the fore, and the United States would do well to reexamine them all in turn and to consider what they really mean.

We cannot expect that the military and the ISI will not be involved with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They helped create the Taliban, surely as the United States did after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Yet their ties have remained friendly, while ours have evolved into a rivalry. Their cause, often, is one and the same. Meanwhile, there are ISI officers whose second job is that of a trainer at an Al Qaeda camp. We cannot possibly criticize them for “sympathizing” or “being soft” with Al Qaeda when they themselves help train Al Qaeda militants—it does not even begin to make sense. The United States has attempted to thrust a foreign ideology upon Pakistan, and it has been repulsed time and time again.

The United States and Pakistan are enemies operating under the veneer of an alliance. This alliance exists for a reason—it has been maintained, at the great cost of our own US statesmen and at the enormous cost of Pakistan’s President Zardari, so that Pakistan does not devolve into civil war and does not become a failed state. It is critical that this relationship continues, for all of the reasons listed above, and for one more: nuclear weapons.

The closest things to a failed nuclear state that the world currently has are the old satellite states of the Soviet Union. They have seen more Highly Enriched Uranium and Petroleum stolen from their warehouses than any other location on earth. They have the weakest guards for their nuclear storehouses—and this applies to Russia itself as well—oftentimes employing simple security guards at slightly more than minimum wage. Pakistan’s premiere nuclear scientists have sold blueprints in the past to a large number of states, Iran among them. It is the belief of many such scientists that nuclear weapons knowledge belongs to the Dar-al-Islam, the concept of an Islamic world united on some level by culture, religion, and tradition. As such, nuclear weapons are not the property of Pakistan, but the property of Islam.

It was pressure from the United States and other nations which eventually put a halt to this pattern and forced a number of nuclear scientists to resign after selling plans to other nations. Should this occur again, and the United States find itself out of any favor in Pakistan and without the benefit of supplying large quantities of cash on an annual basis, the United States will not have the leverage necessary to demand that this stops. It is not a latent threat—Pakistan’s nuclear program is still very alive and the belief that such knowledge belongs to the entire Islamic world is a common one.

Should Pakistan fall into the full-fledged status of a failed state, its nuclear arms will be up for grabs. That is not just to say that its scientists, programs, resources, and abilities will be up for sale—but to say that the weapons themselves will be just as vulnerable. It is a ridiculous thing to imagine that someone would ever use a fully armed nuclear warhead in this modern age, when they are so devastating and can kill so many. But ridiculous things have occurred before, and only a fool dismisses this as impossible.

The threat of nuclear arms is only one part of the greater equation, into which government-mob, tribal-government, intertribal, and military/ISI-civilian government tensions are constantly tested to near breaking. The United States, like it or not, has played and will continue to play a role in this volatile situation. It will be responsible for the actions it chooses to take—such as withdrawing 800 million USD in annual aid—and answerable to the consequences of those actions. The United States and Pakistan have never been “true” allies, as surely as the United States has never counted Saudi Arabia among its real and more reliable friends. But the very idea of an alliance is something worth maintaining—it is something strong in a country that faces weakness.

When we consider aid to Pakistan, it is usually in terms of military aid for a military alliance. Unfortunately, the military and ISI and among the factions in Pakistani society most hateful toward the United States, and their grip on power cannot bring Pakistan up from the status of a dangerous and failed state, no matter how hard those factions may try. In a series of polls conducted by third-party agencies and documented by terrorism and counterterrorism policy experts (See Gottileb’s Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism, and also TerrorFreeTomorrow.org) researchers found several things that the people of Pakistan said would make them see the US as a favorable ally: More humanitarian aid, for schools and hospitals, was foremost among those criteria. Many parts of Pakistan receive no aid from their government. If the US intends to curry Pakistan as an ally, the US must first realize that Pakistan, as we think of it, does not exist in many tribal areas. These areas, dangerous in the context of a failed state and requiring only relatively simple investments that do not begin to reach the two billion dollar mark, demand our attention and our aid. They will make much greater use of our tax dollars than the ISI or the military, to be sure—although for stability’s sake we must also continue to help fund the military.

There were other demands from the people of Pakistan: Free trade policies between the US and Pakistan which would allow their economy to grow, easier access to United States visas, and a shift in policy away from Israel and in favor of Palestine. Undeniably, these three changes are in fact changes that our government should make. The hypocritical trade policies of the United States have dire consequences for poorer nations like Pakistan, and bringing those policies to justice in favor of real free trade would go a very long way in US-Pakistani relations (although it would raise an outcry from other nations, who face a similar dilemma when it comes to US relations). Reversing our policy in regards to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine is an unavoidable necessity which would not only revolutionize our relations with Pakistan, but with all of the Dar-al Islam, the entire Middle Eastern world, Indonesia, and the Maghreb. Easier access to visas is a common complaint from many nations, but Pakistani people in particular face enormous challenges in obtaining visas.

In short, to prevent Pakistan from becoming (or remaining?) a failed state, and to play the best part we can in preventing civil war, we must appeal to the real Pakistan, which exists far outside of the government’s reach, while at the same time appealing to the government and continuing to fund the military. It may make us cringe and feel uneasy, as this alliance is not a “natural” alliance, and it seems clear to many that rivalry should exist between us. But if we are to prevent chaos, we must remain calm, and if we are to prevent war, we must act as if we are at peace. The people of Pakistan have their own interests which are openly divergent from the interests of US politicians and strategists, but for the greater interest and the long-term stability of the United States, of Pakistan, and in fact of the world, we must maintain this unnatural alliance even when it seems clear that open rivalry is the only option available.