INTERNATIONALISM AND NATIONAL INTEREST

The Obama Choice

President Obama’s decision to intervene in the Libyan civil crisis has come down a choice between to two schools of thought that have, in the past, been on opposite poles of foreign policy: Internationalism and National Interest.  The former can be interpreted as that the United States has a responsibility to be a partner in international events as required by international organizations and international situations.  The latter is the self-interest of the United States, ranging from the security of our people, our economy to our form of government.  It has been on rare occasion that for the United States, both Internationalism and National Interest have been in coincidence, such as during both World Wars.  Since World War II, however, U.S. interventions on the international stage have been, for the most part, nakedly in the National Interest of the United States.   President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya is a decision of an internationalist rather than one which maintains the preeminence of National Interest.

The National Interests, at its most basic understanding includes the safety and security of our people, our government, our economy, and our territory.  Protection of these interests requires risk to lives and treasures of the United States to ensure the continuity of our Nation.  One can go about the globe and find U.S. National Interests, which coincide with the geographical Unified Commands of the U.S. Armed Forces, along with the size, budgetary and manning, of those Commands.  Along with the Unified Commands, one should also consider the size of the U.S. embassies in the countries within the geographical areas as to whether that region has a U.S. National Interest.  In the case of the Libyan intervention, the Unified Command is Africa Command (AfriCom), a new and very sparsely manned command under the command of US General Carter Ham, a former Armor Officer, which is ill-equipped to direct combat actions in and around Libya.  The size of the former U.S. Embassy in Tripoli was modest and not considered a prime posting.  Therefore, on the surface, it would seem the United States has interest in Libya. 

This begs the question of “What is the interest of the United States in Libya?”  Is the interest economic, military, related to a natural resource, or bulwark to an enemy of the United States?  Or perhaps there is a combination of these interests?  The Libyan economy has little impact on the economy of the United States.  Militarily, the Libyan Armed Forces, less mercenaries, were not considered a threat to any country in the region, used mostly to maintain control of Libyan territory for Colonel Al-Qaddafi’s government.  Although, one must note that the Security Services of Colonel Al-Qaddafi continued to be a threat in clandestine operations against critics both in and out of Libya.  The natural resource upon which the Libyan economy is based upon is oil.  Libya’s oil exports, however, do not come to the United States, but rather go to Europe and Asia.  This is an ancillary argument to be made that Libyan oil exports that affect our European and Asian allies could, in a secondary-level effect, affect our economy.  I find this argument to be week and not meeting the necessary requirements to be a National Interest.  Finally, our history with Libya goes back to the days of the Barbary Pirates, the Great White Fleet, and the U.S. Marines marching to Tripoli.  Since the coup d’état by Colonel Al-Qaddafi, and his alignment with the then Soviet Union, Libya has been on the opposite side of the friendly nation spectrum.  Attacks on the Berlin discotheque, the murder of Libyan dissidents in London, and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 are the most glaring examples of anti-U.S. actions.  There are other examples that have placed Libya, under the Colonel, on the side of Al-Qaida, IRA terrorist, and providing safe-haven to groups that are anti-U.S.  However, since 2006, most of these actions have been minimal, with the exception of support for Al-Qaida in Iraq, and not raising to the level of threat to the U.S., as evidenced by military sales approved prior to the current crisis.  Therefore, one can surmise that as of mid-February 2011, the United States did not have a National Interest in Libya that would require an expenditure of U.S. lives or treasure.

If not because of National Interest, then is there any other reason to expend U.S. lives and treasure in Libya?  The answer to this question lies in the belief that if an international crisis arises, the United States has a duty under international agreement to act on behalf of the international community.  In Libya, with demonstrations breaking out throughout the country, the government, that is, Colonel Al-Qaddafi, did not take rebellion as well as the leaders of Tunisia or Egypt.  Rather than fade quietly into oblivion, Colonel Al-Qaddafi proceed to ruthlessly put down the rebellion with the military might of his Armed Forces.  More specifically, Colonel Al-Qaddafi attacked rebellious civilians indiscriminately that were either unarmed or lightly armed in comparison to the weapons used by the Libyan Armed Forces.  This disproportionate use of force within the sovereign borders of Libya is the lynchpin upon which other sovereign nations have decided to base their actions against the Libyan Armed Forces.  The inhumane use of force to keep control of Libya by Col Al-Qaddafi has resulted in sanctions by the United Nations’ Security Council Resolution 1973.

International crisis, international coalitions, international decisions, international organizations, and international human rights are the basis of internationalism.  Libyan civilians killed, NATO, International Law and the Geneva Conventions, UN Security Council, and the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity are the basis of intervention in Libya.  An international consensus that Col Al-Qaddafi has committed crimes against humanity and should not use disproportionate force to retain control of Libya is the outcome of this internationalism.  Morally sound and appealing to the better conscious of civilized people, UN Resolution 1973 is a call to arms, a call for the greater nations to support the Libyan people threatened by Col Al-Qaddafi.  An international call to solve a national problem in a country that has no strategic value to the United States, while having strategic value to U.S. allies, seems an unlikely event in which to dedicate U.S. lives and treasure.  Internationalism provides the rationale reason for President Obama to order the U.S. military into action.

Internationalism, however, is a slippery slope upon which to base a foreign policy.  Internationalism is more subjective than National Interests.  Internationalism can be in direct opposition to National Interests and places the national leadership in a position of moral hazard.  The question which a U.S. leader must answer when considering internationalism and the use of military force surrounds the constitutionality of such an act.  In the case of Libya, there is a question of constitutionality since Congress has not declared war, the chaos in Libya does not directly threaten the United States, nor is UN Resolution 1973 an obligation upon the United States.  Internationalism boils down to the ability of a nation to persuade another that an incident in a third country is a threat to humanity in or out of the sovereign borders of that third country.  In the current case of Libya, the U.S. has been persuaded that Col Al-Qaddafi’s attempts to hold onto power within the sovereign borders of Libya are a threat to the humanity of Libya.  There are no safeguards in the use of internationalism.  In the case of the United States, Internationalism is left to our Chief Executive, President Obama.