I have noticed in our many debates about foreign policy that there is one glaring omission. No one discusses what our overall goals should be. Rather than debate the driving principles behind foreign policy, we end up stuck in specifics, our image in the world, national interests, resources, Chinese influence, the "Israel Lobby" and so on. However, throughout all of it, we never once ask "What is the purpose of our foreign policy?"

Of course any view of foreign policy has an implicit set of principles behind it, but they are very rarely voiced. For example, the Democrat preoccupation with international opinion and the "community of nations" shows that they think a significant part of foreign policy is related to being a "good citizen", at least as defined by the other nations of the world. Why that should be important, however, is never mentioned. Nor how we can be considered a "good citizen" when so many nations differ in their beliefs of what is good.

The Republican policy is even less consistent, as the Republican party is sadly currently split between a small isolationist segment, a considerable free-trade block, a rising protectionist group, and defense conservatives who are split themselves between those trying to defend US interests and those seeking to extend US presence, as well as those who support and oppose nation building. And, to make it all the more confusing, often those supporting these positions claim to be endorsing something completely different, such as protectionists claiming to support trade, or nation builders claiming to endorse only the protection of interests. Which means that it is nearly impossible to speak of a single Republican position. (The Democrats are not as uniform as I suggest, but are far more unified than the Republicans, mainly split between utopian one-worlders, "citizen of the world" types, and pro-"stability" Foggy Bottom "realists". The differences there are much smaller than between the many Republicans.)

But what should be our foreign policy?

Well, in my mind, foreign policy is nothing but an extension of domestic policy beyond our borders. Starting from the principles I expounded in "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II", the goal of the state is to provide courts to peacefully settle disputes and, more importantly, means to protect our rights. So, in terms of foreign policy, the goal should be to protect our citizens from force, theft and fraud when abroad, and to protect our nation as a whole from the same.

The trick is how those translate into specifics. Does my minimalist approach mean I would adopt a Ron Paul-like isolationism? Endorsing only defensive wars once the enemy was on our shores? Or would I allow for Jeffersonian defense of interests, such as his attack on the Barbary Pirates? And how does my philosophy agree with acts like Perry's opening of Japan or our nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think many self-described libertarians would be shocked to find that I have no problem with, not just Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates, but even our opening of Japan and our current actions in the Middle East and Central Asia. (Though not as much as most will be shocked by my formulation of our driving philosophy later on.)

My philosophy is simple, the government exists to provide a collective protection of individual rights, here or abroad. In foreign lands we tend to rely upon other nations to provide basic protections, such as police and courts, so we do not normally need to interfere. However, when a foreign nation refuses to protect our citizens, or, worse, endorses or commits violation of our citizens' rights, then we have every right to intervene. Which is why I agree with Jefferson's attacks on the Barbary Pirates, who were obviously engaged in violating the rights of our citizens. Similarly, as the Japanese not only refused entry, but violently attacked those who tried to enter, or even accidentally landed upon the shore of, Japan, we were completely justified in our actions there as well.

But what of our nation building? Or preemptive war? Or military aid? Or even maintaining bases in other lands? In all these cases, I think it depends upon circumstances. As the police are justified in maintaining police stations near potential trouble spots, I think we are well within our rights to maintain bases in other lands to allow us to easily defend our citizens' interests wherever it might take place. And likewise, support for allied nations is justified, provided it allows us to better protect the interests of our nation or our citizens. And, as for preemptive war, if a nation has made it clear that they are threatening us, or intend to do so, then I think it is not wrong to attack them to prevent a future assault, just as you don't need to wait for a man to pull the trigger, you have the right to defend yourself as soon as he aims a gun at you.

Now nation building is where it becomes tricky. In our current case, not only were Afghanistan and Iraq hostile nations, but in both cases we had other security interests involved*. And in those cases I have no problem with spending efforts on rebuilding the state as well as destroying it, though I also would have not been upset had we not done so, as we have no obligation to rebuild a hostile land should we have no reason to do so. In other cases, such as Darfur or Somalia, I can't think of a justification for nation building independent of a national security threat. So long as a nation is in no way threatening the interest of our nation or citizens, I can't think of a justification for intervention, no matter how much the government activities there may upset us.

And what of all those other goals? What of international opinion or foreign aid? Well, to be blunt, I can't understand either as a goal. I agree it would be nice if all the other nations liked us, but that can't be our concern. So long as they protect the rights of our citizens, it is a matter of indifference whether they like us or not. To steal a quote: Let them hate us so long as they fear us. Whether foreign lands like us or not is not a matter with which government should concern itself, its sole interest should be whether foreign lands are respecting the rights of our citizens and taking no hostile actions toward us. Anything beyond that is a matter for individual citizens to worry about, not the state.

Foreign aid is an even more useless concept. I wrote about this before, in "Looking at Foreign Aid", and don't think I will spend much more time on it. The fact is simple. If the government has no justification for providing domestic welfare, how much less justification does it have to provide welfare abroad? That alone should be enough to end the debate.

So, to put it in a brief form, foreign policy should be entirely interested in defending the rights of our citizens, including protecting our nation from assault. Anything which advances those goals is justified, anything else is an improper use of state power. Admittedly that leaves room for debate about specific policies, but that is why we would still need a legislature, even in the most minimalist state. What it does not leave room to debate is whether most of our current foreign policy is improper or not, as clearly almost all of the foreign programs on which we now spend money are well outside the scope of a properly run state.

--------------------------------------------------------

* Rather than get into the WMD question here, which I covered in "Food For Thought", let us just agree that Saddam had an obligation under the cease fire to both allow us to create no-fly zones and to provide proof he had disarmed. He did not provide adequate proof, and he fired upon planes in the no-fly zone. That was enough to end the ceasefire and renew hostilities. In fact, even without a ceasefire, had he just fired on our planes that would be enough to justify war, so we had more than enough cause to attack, whatever the status of his WMD programs.

--------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

By the way, for all those who cried about "blood for oil", I do need to point out something. Corporations, their owners and employees, are US citizens as well, so any attempt by a foreign nation to nationalize US interests is an assault upon the rights of our citizens and could justify invasion as well. Doubtless "war for profit" would upset a lot of the "International ANSWER" crowd, but it is a legitimate action, as property rights are one of the rights which we instituted government to protect, no matter how much it upsets semi-socialist college kids.