I must admit that I hadn't been thinking much about foreign policy lately. But something I saw in the news last week made me stop and think. Recently, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took it upon himself to throw Yassir Arafat, head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, out of a concert in New York. He called Arafat "a criminal and a terrorist" in the process.
I can't help but wonder about Giuliani's motivations for such an action. Since the mayor hadn't said a great deal about the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, perhaps he felt the need to make his voice heard. But the reason why he deserves to be castigated for this action is not his apparent opposition to the peace plan, nor his vocal dissent from the foreign policy that the Clinton administration has chosen to pursue. Giuliani has a right to his opinions, and as a public figure he has the right to speak his mind about any issue, including American foreign policy.
What Giuliani should be rebuked for is his abuse of his powers as the chief executive of a major city to put his own stamp on United States foreign policy, something he has no business doing. What the mayor of New York thinks of the peace process is not an issue here: the manner in which he chose to express himself is.
Of course, the real reason Giuliani acted in the rash, arrogant manner that he did was that he wanted to appease some of his own constituents who oppose the Israel-PLO accord. The act of criticizing Arafat or the PLO is one thing; throwing a world leader that one does not like out of a concert for no reason other than to boost one's own popularity is a shameful act of self-serving demagoguery.
Another policy that springs to mind is the issue of the United States embargo on Cuba. With the Cold War having long since ended, U.S. foreign policy has continued to treat the regime of Fidel Castro as a grave threat to America. The American business community seems ready to reinvest in Cuba. But neither President Clinton nor the Republicans in Congress is pushing the other to end the embargo or even to have an honest debate about its effects in Cuba or in the U.S.
The reason? Extreme anti-Castro sentiment is very strong in South Florida, a key political battleground. Such a reason, whatever one may think either of the embargo or of Castro's Cuba in general, is a poor one. Not much is said about whether there is a need to undermine the Cuban government and why, and, even assuming that undermining Castro is in our national interest, whether the embargo is a help or a hindrance to this cause. Many experts on Cuba insist that the more Castro can rally the Cuban people against the United States and the embargo, the easier it is for him to blame all the problems that beset Cuba on the United States rather than his own regime. It's an arguable proposition, but no one's really arguing for or against it.
This foolishness has to stop. The country cannot afford to pursue foreign policy based primarily on such considerations.
Someone who applauds actions such as those of Giuliani or the unquestioned continuation of the embargo on Cuba may claim that foreign policy should be based on the promotion of a set of ideals and that Arafat and Castro do not, in one way or another, embody these ideals. There is not necessarily anything wrong with attempting to promote a set of ideals in the pursuit of foreign policy or in disagreeing with what the national interests of the United States may or may not be. However, it is important that foreign policy decisions are made based on national interest, whether one includes promoting democratic government (or some other ideal) in other nations in this calculation or not. It is certainly arguable that the promotion of democratic societies in other nations is in America's national interest.
This is not to argue, for instance, that America's involvement in wars regardless of what the American people may believe, or that public opinion cannot be an important factor in the calculation of national interest. The Vietnam War and the repression it generated provides a clear example of a foreign policy decision that should have been re-evaluated in light of the trouble it caused at home. Regardless of what the worldwide goals of the war were, it should be obvious that the war was not good for America.
The two cases with which I began this column are less attempts at articulating idealism in foreign policy than attempts to gain political points at home through the pursuit of foreign policy. And it should be clear that these efforts do not take into account the national interest, however one chooses to define that term. This method of shaping foreign policy, if it continues to be pursued by people too concerned about appeasing specific constituencies at home, is certain to have a detrimental effect on America's national standing.
