RSS 2.0 FeedJohn McCain Calls For Another Entangling Alliance
by Doug MataconisAs if the alphabet soup of international agencies and treaties that the United States is a part of wasn’t enough, John McCain is calling for the creation of another entangling alliance:
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate John McCain envisions a “League of Democracies” as part of a more cooperative foreign policy with U.S. allies.
The Arizona senator will call for such an organization to be “the core of an international order of peace based on freedom” in a speech Tuesday at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.
“We Americans must be willing to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies,” McCain says, according to excerpts his campaign provided. “Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom, knowledge and resources necessary to succeed.”
“To be a good leader, America must be a good ally,” he adds in the speech, another in a series of policy addresses as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination.
I agree with McCain’s statement that American foreign policy should not be based upon the idea that we can act however we wish, where ever we wish, whenever we wish. Instead, the core principle of American foreign policy should be the protection of the freedom and security of the United States of America.
The American military doesn’t exist to “spread democracy” to foreign lands — as if democracy by itself was the cure for the world’s problems. And it doesn’t exist to expand Pax Americana. It exists to protect the United States, and that is what America’s foreign policy should be based upon as well.
While McCain’s idea avoids the crusade for democracy nonsense that the Bush Administration has spouted since September 11th, it adopts the mistake of thinking that the only proper international action by the United States is action done in concert with, and with the approval of, other nations. Call this the Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton School of Foreign Policy.
I’m not saying that I don’t think the United States should have allies, or even that we shouldn’t enter into mutual defense treaties like NATO. However, as George Washington noted in his Farewell Address:
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
What Washington said then, is equally true today. Clearly, the United States has interests outside of its borders worth protecting. At the same time, though, we should keep in mind that the primary obligation is to the defense of the American people, not the preservation of yet another alliance.
The benefits of a hesitance to enter too injudiciously into alliances or to interfere in others nations’ internal affairs should be self-evident when you realize that acting without perspective or foresight leads us into alliances like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/index.html
Comment by UCrawford — May 1, 2007 @ 2:50 pmMcCain is so far behind the power curve. Months ago, someone else (Neal Boortz? Vox Day?) had already suggested an Alliance of Free Nations to replace the United (Abomi)Nations. The idea would be that only nations that truly believe in freedom would be allowed in, not every third-world tinpot dictator.
And even that idea is fraught with dangers.
Comment by Doh-San — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pmWho’s going to define what a free nation is?
Comment by Kevin — May 1, 2007 @ 4:45 pmReally? You think “free nation” is a relative term? You think the definition is open for debate? Perhaps it is on the margins, but I think it’s fairly easy to identify a nation that is free from one that is not.
To answer your question more directly, I think the current members would decide what constitutes a free nation, but I like I said before it’s fairly obvious.
Comment by Bret — May 1, 2007 @ 5:26 pmBret,
We have loons that comment here that call the United States a fascist dictatorship and call Hugo Chavez a man who believes in freedom. Clearly both are false. You and I both know what a free nation is, there are clearly those who do not.
Comment by Kevin — May 1, 2007 @ 5:50 pmPoint taken. Perhaps a “nation of free men” might be a better litmus test? Although I’m sure there are those who would argue what constitutes a “free man”, too.
Comment by Bret — May 1, 2007 @ 6:01 pm