Non-interventionism makes a comeback
“I will not talk of non-intervention,” Lord Palmerston once said, “for it is not an English word.” What applied to Britain 150 years ago might well apply to America today. Two decades after the end of the Cold War, the United States maintains troops in over 150 countries around the world and military bases in 53. But the past two years have seen renewed bouts of introspection over the nation’s role in the world.
The cumulative effects of mounting deficits and two protracted wars have sparked increased debate in the United States about the virtues of engagement with other nations and intervention in their affairs. The non-interventionist movement, which calls for military disengagement while stopping short of isolationist protectionism, has won a lot of converts.
Although the full non-interventionist agenda is neither feasible nor likely to be implemented anytime soon, the non-interventionist movement may still influence American foreign policy by refocusing U.S. efforts on fundamental geopolitical priorities and promoting more selective intervention abroad.
To Mind One’s Own
As Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard, told the HPR, the principle of non-intervention is one “by which countries agree not to interfere in each others’ internal affairs.” Walt distinguishes between non-intervention and isolationism, the latter of which includes a protectionist component. A non-interventionist America would end its embargo on Cuba and withdraw from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it would maintain its trade links with the rest of the world.
As the war in Afghanistan nears its ten-year mark, Americans appear to be increasingly pessimistic about the nation’s role overseas. A 2009 Pew survey found, for the first time in 40 years of polling, that a plurality of Americans—49 percent—felt that the United States should “mind its own business internationally.” Capitalizing on that sentiment, Tea Party icons such as the newly elected Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued for bringing troops home from current wars and overseas bases.
The Costs of Interference
Non-interventionist arguments have a certain logic. To begin with, America’s foreign presence comes at considerable expense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has approved more than $1 trillion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Furthermore, while the costs are real and tangible, the benefits are ambiguous and difficult to measure.
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a non-partisan think tank, told the HPR that interventionism is counterproductive when it comes to U.S. foreign policy objectives. “Terrorism is caused by the intervention in the first place,” said Eland, pointing to a study by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, which argued that the majority of suicide terrorist attacks against the United States since the 1980s could be attributed to America’s military occupation of foreign lands.
Nevertheless, this argument can be taken too far; the United States would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to withdraw from the tangle of alliances it has helped create. And while a plurality of Americans claim to want to “mind their own business” as a nation, other polls show continued support for engagement with traditional allies.
Perhaps the most trenchant non-interventionist critique is that by focusing on the international periphery, America may ignore its most important strategic priorities. In his essay, “A Framework for Interventionism,” the journalist Fareed Zakaria shows how 19th century Britain elevated tangential countries such as Sudan and Uganda to an unmerited level of importance, overlooking Germany’s threatening rise to power.
By distracting itself in various regional quagmires, America may risk failing to prepare for the rise of another great power: China. “If I were a strategist in Beijing,” Walt explained, “I would want the United States to be in Afghanistan forever.” An America that spends less political and actual capital on the Middle East could do more to contain China’s geopolitical ascent by seeking new allies to counterbalance its growing regional assertiveness.
Selective Engagement
Ultimately, from a strategic perspective, a policy of strict non-intervention is neither realistic nor desirable for the United States. Rather than convincing the United States to adopt a hands-off approach, however, the non-interventionist movement may be able to draw attention to the value of selective engagement. Such engagement would involve a sober understanding of America’s interests, as well as a reassignment of priorities to reflect long-term strategic concerns.
Kaiyang Huang ’14 is a Staff Writer.
Strategic Disengagement
- Advertisement -
