The U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of International Security Issues

The question of whether the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East really plan to attack the United States or have ties to anti-American terrorist groups has yet to be answered. But even if new evidence unveils such ties, the democracy-based arguments of the current U.S. administration will still lack a sound rationale. Because, as far as international security problems are concerned, democracy can hardly ever be a cure to the sickness.

Democracy cannot be a Tool of Conflict Resolution

Issues related to international security stem from a conflict of interests – rather than the nature of the regime that prevails. States, almost always, aim to follow policies that serve their best interests, and unlike domestic politics, democracy has not yet been an effectual instrument in breaking deadlocks on an international level. Northern Ireland, for example, is a chronic problem between two democracies, but democracy alone has not been sufficient to resolve the conflict.

Under a domestic politics context, there is no reason why democracy should necessarily produce results that are in line with the interests of another nation. Because, adoption of democracy does not silence popular views or policy choices – including those which the majority of the voters deem necessary for their subjective ends. Moreover, globalization works against the modernist idea that the role of religion will fade away in societies as well as in individual lives; and as different nations re-embrace their cultural and religious identities, countries in the Middle East will naturally be more sensitive in their problems with Israel. Democratization is not capable of reversing such trends and developments in a society.

Besides, it is highly questionable as to whether it is possible to export democracy, since democracy does not prevail by democratic institutions but by a democratic mindset that is absorbed by the society in generations.

Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The current U.S. foreign policy understands democratization also as a tool of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction – and this is yet another issue where the role of democracy is exaggerated.

Although it is true that democracy rejects the militarist worldview that favors proliferation by all means possible, it is nevertheless not sufficient solely by itself to ensure peace. This is mainly because democracy is (unfortunately) still an instrument of domestic politics. In other words, democracy, for the most part, determines only domestic issues related to rights and public participation, however, proves ineffective in international relations. Iraq War, for example, was started in the name of freedoms by a coalition of countries whose populations vastly opposed it.

If democracy is restricted to domestic affairs and does not really apply to international security issues, then the nature of the domestic regime is irrelevant when judging who should have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction, and who should not. All countries have certain interests, and all wars start for pragmatist reasons. It is apparently not in the best interests of the United States (or any other state) to have enemies with WMD. However, nonproliferation through preemptive strikes, in that matter, is merely another form of pursuing interests by force, and has nothing to do with democratization whatsoever.

Alternative Policy Implications

Samuel Huntington argues that the world is moving away from political ideology-based bipolarization after the collapse of the USSR, and that, in the 21st century, culture and civilizations will determine the nature of alliances. During the Cold War Era, NATO served as a treaty organization against the expansionist threat of communism, which is now a thing of the past. If weapons of mass destruction are the biggest present threat against humanity, then NATO should be replaced by a similar treaty organization which would accept countries that possess nuclear technology (not nuclear weapons) as members. Abiding by the organizational codes of inspection, the countries which form this alliance must register all of their nuclear research facilities and storage. The treaty organization can, in the end, easily identify any country that does not wish to become a member and to comply with organizational codes.

The ideas of the scholars and political analysts who offer (or reject) a multilateral, international solution have, of course, not been tested – simply because this is a fairly new issue, and it is not possible to scientifically explain phenomena that have yet to occur. The implications of the Cold War Era, however, may be an exception. Because, we know it for a fact that the Cold War Era did not heat up, and this is at least partially due to the existence of the NATO. If a coalition of the willing decided to preemptively attack the Soviet Republic on the basis that it had nuclear weapons (instead of forming an international alliance), that would not prevent nuclear war. It would evangelize it.