Home › Discussions › Foreign Policy as Social Work

Foreign Policy as Social Work

Summary --

President Clinton's foreign policy, rather than protecting American national interests, has pursued social work worldwide. Three failed interventions in 1993--in Bosnia, in Somalia, and the first try in Haiti--illustrate this dramatically. Preoccupied with "helping the helpless," the administration alienated vital allies, changed direction repeatedly to repair Clinton's sagging image, and let special interest groups harm U.S. policy toward Japan and Russia. With his domestic policy stalled, Clinton's opponents may end up painting him what he never wanted to be: a foreign policy president.

Related

Essay, Sep/Oct 1994
The Recovery of Internationalism: Stemming the Isolationist Impulse
David C. Hendrickson

President Clinton has tried to pursue a foreign policy agenda even more ambitious than his predecessor's. But as international realities and domestic priorities become clear, he has been forced to retreat in area after area of policy. The resulting flips and flops of policy toward Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, North Korea, and China have undermined U.S. credibility. But more important, they risk making Americans turn inward in dismay, forsaking the prudent internationalism that has characterized American foreign policy since World War II. Let us abandon a kind of leadership we are not prepared to exercise on behalf of a world order the price of which we have no intention of paying.

Read
Essay, Nov/Dec 1994
In Defense of Intervention
Tony Smith

President Clinton has finally done the right thing in Haiti. Expanding democracy abroad squarely fits America's Wilsonian tradition. Historically, this approach has provided a proven alternative to communism and fascism, a healthy outlet for nationalism, and a sturdy pillar of America's Cold War success. A democratic Latin America holds the best prospect for good relations with the United States.

Read
Essay, Sep/Oct 1995
Making Peace with the Guilty: The Truth About Bosnia
Charles G. Boyd

The difference between the factions in Bosnia is not morality, as the Bosnian Muslims and Western press insist, but power and opportunity. All have the same goal: to avoid living as a minority. All have committed crimes against other ethnic groups. Despite its claims of neutrality and preaching against military solutions, the United States has favored the Bosnian Muslims, keeping silent as they launched offensives from U.N.-guarded safe areas. Since air strikes cannot resolve the conflict, the United States must discourage violence by all sides and let Russia--the one country Serbs trust--take the lead in negotiations.

Read
Cover image

In the Magazine

March/April 2010, 2, 89
Essay
After Iran Gets the Bomb
James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh

Despite international pressure, Iran appears to be continuing its march toward getting a nuclear bomb. But Washington can contain and mitigate the consequences of Tehran's nuclear defiance, keeping an abhorrent outcome from becoming a catastrophic one.
Read