How Should we “Do” Foreign Policy?

If you melt it down to its core, US foreign policy is—and should continue to be—interested in catering to the needs of the American people while at the same time advocating for intrinsically “good” things such as safeguarding human rights around the world. It has long been debated what the top foreign policy objectives for the United States are, but it is generally agreed upon that these three objectives are key:

1. Protect the lives of American citizens

2. Maintain the balance of power in the world 

3. Protect human rights and Democratic ideals

Looking deeply into these core objectives allows you to break them down further: 

1. “Protecting the lives of American citizens” includes thwarting terrorist attacks, but it also includes other objectives such as protecting —or providing the ability to acquire— the many wants of the American people (such as oil for our cars, the resources needed to build our homes, and the many foods we like to eat). 

2. “Maintain the balance of power in the world” includes the nurturing of mutually-beneficial alliances, dissuading our enemies from provoking wars that are not beneficial to the US, and maintaining our status as the world superpower (this is important as it gives us a certain degree of power on the world stage that we can use to further our goals).

3. “Protect human rights and Democratic ideals” means helping disadvantaged people by allowing them to emigrate into the US, providing foreign aid to reduce the number of hungry people throughout the world, and supporting countries which adopt a Democratic system of government.

Weighing the Variables

The near-impossible task that lies ahead for those that actually have the power to influence foreign policy is how you weigh all of these variables against each other. When moral choices are pitted against the safety of the citizens who have tasked us with protecting them, which one should we choose? While there are many cases in which it is in America’s interest to call out, sanction, or intervene in a country’s affairs if it is known that they are committing some kind of heinous act (for example persecuting ethnic minorities), there are times when it is decisively not in the US’s best interest to intervene. Yet, there are undoubtedly times when the interests of Americans must take a back seat in order to safeguard human rights. These situations are inherently complex since they force decision-makers to weigh a variety of different things: how do you continue to provide for your constituency when certain actions go against your morals? How much more important are the lives of Americans than the lives of foreigners? If an atrocity is being committed, how bad does the atrocity have to be in order for it to merit US intervention? How is this calculus affected if the atrocity is being committed by one of our allies, or by a country that we are deeply economically reliant on? How much should Americans' opinions on certain issues guide foreign policy? How important is it really for the US to continue projecting power across the world? And how much of the resources that we spend abroad could be better utilized at home?

These are questions that have no easy answers, but a useful way in which we can begin to answer them is by adapting our foreign policy positions depending on the situational context, and then seeing how the benefits of such a decision outweigh the costs associated with it. Here is an example of how a foreign policy decision should be approached:

At the onset of the Russian invasion into Ukraine in February of 2022, there were calls for the US/NATO to impose a so-called “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. This would mean that the US would prohibit airplanes from flying over Ukraine, and this would be enforced by shooting down any plane that violates the fly zone. In practicality, this would mean that any Russian planes hoping to gain access into Ukrainian airspace would be shot down by American fighter jets. Below are the benefits and costs of such a policy:

*This is a very short list of the costs and benefits associated with a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and a real list/analysis would include hundreds of possible reactions and consequences.

Benefits:

• Would serve to prohibit Russia from gaining air superiority over Ukraine

• Spare the lives of countless innocent Ukrainians 

• Slowdown the Russian military advance 

• Force Putin to rethink his invasion plans 

• Ukraine would be grateful for a US-backed no-fly zone

• Shows our adversaries (notably China) that the US will have a strong military response to unjustified land-grab invasions

Costs:

• Unless Russia backs down (which is unlikely to happen), this would lead to a direct confrontation between the US and Russia, which could very easily escalate to nuclear war

• Many adversarial countries could use this moment to prove their point that the US is an imperialist power that seeks to become the “world police”

• Other enemy powers that were unsure if the US would intervene in what they might see as a regional conflict would now operate under the assumption that the US would, and this could lead to preemptively attacking US bases as to slow down the response 

• Any economic and military costs for the American public that arise from enacting a no-fly zone

It is widely agreed upon that the benefits of imposing a no-fly zone are not worth the high costs associated with the chance of a direct confrontation between the US and Russia. Therefore, such a decision should not be undertaken.

Foreign policy is really a game of math. The difference though, is that instead of X and Y, you are dealing with hundreds upon hundreds of variables, all of which have a direct effect on people's lives. We should aim for a foreign policy strategy that identifies and addresses all of these variables in the best way possible. This is an incredibly daunting task, and now is as good a time as ever to seriously consider why the US is acting the way that it is on the international stage, and what we can do better.