So, I figured it might be a good idea to further explain my views on foreign policy, and how I tend to differentiate between valid interventions in the world, and bad ones. For example, I support helping Ukraine to weaken Russia, but I don't support invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Basically, my approach to foreign policy is akin to the prisoner's dilemma. For those who don't know how it works, you have two options: to cooperate or betray the other person. Mutual cooperation tends to lead to long term benefits and prosperity for both parties. However, it might be better in the short term if one party betrays the other. If this happens, then you might get short term gains at the expense of the other person, if they cooperate, but if both betray simultaneously, both lose.
In a foreign policy sense, this is basically the same thing as intervention. We generally want peace and stability. Were over here, you're over there, you stay over there, we stay over here. Invading other countries are like the betrayal option, in which we can get short term gains at the expense of another, which is, quite frankly, unethical. And of course, if both parties betray each other, we both lose because wars suck. And this is how I support how we do foreign policy.
Invading a small country is like a betrayal with few to no drawbacks. They're powerless, they can't fight back, and we can gain lots of natural resources. But it is, as the left would say, imperialism, and that's bad.
But, at the same time, Russia "betrayed" Ukraine, and given this can upset the balance of power in Europe, we have decided to counteract that to punish that behavior. The goal is to stop Russia from harboring their own imperialist ambitions, and to stay within their own borders, and operate in the current system. So, foreign interventions that are unjustified should generally be punished to prevent that behavior in the future. Even if the negative effects go both ways, it is generally worth it to prevent further interventions the first time it happens, lest Russia be emboldened.
While we should both avoid "betraying" each other as this leads to world war 3, and we ALL lose in that scenario, we do have to push back at some points. But the left doesn't have any stomach for brinksmanship. Russia is testing how much they can get away with, and they want to give them some concessions so they can "save face" and back down. But if they do this, it rewards the initial behavior, and that behavior should effectively be punished, not rewarded. So I am for punishing the betrayal option.
That's generally the best way to solve the dilemma. Cooperate when possible, but if someone else insists on "betraying", you gotta betray, yourself, in order to punish the other party for betraying in the first place. However, it's best to do this in a simple "tit for tat" way, and then let bygones be bygones. Punish the behavior, make them stop, and then cooperate again. Constant betrayals just perpetuates the cycle, and we honestly want cooperation. Cooperation simply meaning we tolerate each other and don't do anything aggressive ourselves.
This is why I can say that many of our interventions like Iraq and Afghanistan, specifically Iraq as Afghanistan was arguably a response to 9/11, were unjustified, but defending Ukraine is justified. One is an aggressive action on the part of our country, and the other is defensive in nature. Of course, Russia has attempted to manufacture consent to claim their actions are defensive, but everyone knows they're full of crap.
And that's generally speaking how I see foreign policy. I don't want to have to play the imperialism game and all, but foreign policy is a tricky, amoral mess given states are the highest actual arbiters of enforced morality and international organizations like the UN have symbolic power at best and have no actual teeth to enforce anything. The best we can do is to simply defend our interests, but largely play defensively. If someone tried to start trouble, we need to respond to make it not worth it to the country in question to try such a thing in the first place, but otherwise, we need to largely act passively. Be the actual benevolent "empire" that simply stabilizes the world, keeps trade open, and discourages aggression, rather than be actively involved in conflicts ourselves. We shouldn't be involved in the Iraqs and Afghanistans and Syrias of the world. But we should punish Russia for getting involved in the Ukraines of the world, or China for getting involved in the Taiwans of the world. Ya know? Defense, not offense.
No comments:
Post a Comment