Conservative Internationalism
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26105009.html
By Henry R. Nau, Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University
Reviewed by Francis P. Sempa, Contributing Editor

In the August-September issue of the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review, Henry R. Nau, a professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs who served in the Ford and Reagan administrations, has written a lengthy and fascinating article identifying the principal tenets and analyzing the historical foundations of an approach to foreign policy he calls “conservative internationalism.”

Nau identifies key tenets of “conservative internationalism,” and traces the historical and intellectual foundations of this approach to the presidencies of Jefferson, Polk, Truman, and Reagan. He also explains how “conservative internationalism” differs in some ways and is similar in other ways to “realism” as exemplified by Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt, and “liberal internationalism” as practiced by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

The 11 tenets of “conservative internationalism” are:
(1) Expanding freedom by increasing the world's number of democratic, constitutional governments;
(2) Focusing initially on geopolitical, not ideological threats;
(3) Seeking opportunities to fashion a balance of power that expands freedom;
(4) Exercising prudence in picking targets for the expansion of freedom;
(5) Consistently combining force with diplomacy to achieve foreign policy goals;
(6) Giving equal weight to force and diplomacy, and timing diplomatic initiatives to coincide with effective military strength;
(7) Relying less on international institutions and being less concerned with constructing a “world community;”
(8) Recognizing that expanding democracy is difficult and significantly constrained by culture and other local factors;
(9) Promoting expansion of free trade that encourages (but does not guarantee) political freedom abroad;
(10) Factoring culture, ideology, and religion, along with economics, into selecting targets for expanding freedom; and
(11) Accepting that in free societies foreign policy must receive public support to achieve ultimate success.

Nau provides historical examples of “conservative internationalism” at work:

• Jefferson’s confronting the Barbary pirates, skillfully negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and preparing for war by the embargo against Britain;
• Polk’s use of diplomacy and force to annex Texas and expand the reach of American power to the west and southwest of the continent;
• Truman’s extension of the U.S. blanket of freedom to Greece, Turkey, and Western Europe via the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan, and NATO; and
• Reagan’s victory in the Cold War, which brought freedom to Eastern Europe with relatively little bloodshed.

Finally, Nau applies “conservative internationalism” to today’s foreign policy debate, and concludes that this approach provides a “more realistic assessment” of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, “a more achievable agenda to spread democracy,” a more useful model of marrying force to diplomacy to achieve foreign policy goals, and a tradition of prudence and patience in accomplishing those goals.

“In both Iraq and Afghanistan,” counsels Nau, “U.S. foreign policy needs more patience.” Democracy will not be achieved soon or with perfection. Our policies must adapt to local conditions and circumstances. Islamic moderates must be encouraged and supported throughout the region. Force and diplomacy must work hand-in-hand to achieve the security and stability without which democracy and freedom cannot grow and flourish. “This is the way the long battle for the moderate soul of Islam will be waged and won.”