By your argument then we shouldn't have aided Soviet Russia in World War II because Stalin was a monster. And the practical consequence would have been a Nazi victory in Europe.

How many millions of people worldwide are you willing to sacrifice in order to uphold your lofty ideals?

The United States, like other countries, does what it does to promote its self interests. The United States PREFERS democracies because democracies tend to better serve US interests. This is no different than any other country - democracy or not.

We felt that communism was the greater evil. Like in WW2, we chose what we felt is the lesser of the two evils.

Good and clear article,
as you point justly, there are no moral in foreign politics, just well understood interests. Even knowing it doesn't make the hypocrisy less disgusting and all the countries does the same. France and UK follow the same logic, with less success , but still the same.

Incidentally, Frogboy is my other account here for Admin work.

O G San: Bravo! A sober and well written article. I think you really nailed it here. A lot of the debates here are getting more and more polarized; it's becoming harder to see the real issues. We need more articles like this, so keep it up!

Jepel,

Yes you're right, exactly the same could be said of France and Britain.

Brad/Frogboy,

"You simply stating the US doesn't prefer democracies doesn't make it true simply because you can provide examples of where the US hasn't supported democracies."

What a strange, irrational argument: "What you say isn't true even when you provide evidence."

I didn't "simply state" this, I wrote a whole blog on it.

"Why do you think the US supported Pinochet?"

The word "installed" would be more appropriate. Pinochet pursued policies which were much more condusive to American big business than Allende.

BriRyJor,

"Overall thought the U.S. doesn't really care who they piss off if someone steps on it's toes (interests)."

OK, then drop the hypocritical rhetoric.

Dynosaur,

"Common sense dictates that your enemys enemy is your friend, this is true in any country."

No, this logic is not always valid. Last year America's enemy was Saddam whose enemy was Iran. Did that make the US and Iran friends?

Good article,
I think you need to separate state interests from capital interests though.

Fighting communism could at least be seen as a state interest and could possibly be used as an excuse for some actions where communism was seen as the greater evil.

Trying to destabalise countries for commercial gain is wrong.

Unfortunately the US seldom makes this dinction or at least this distinction is often blurred with multinational company interests being in the states interest.

Paul.

O G San,

You have to learn that being an internationalist is not in the best interest of the U.S. How are our interests secured by pandering to the European interests? They aren't. You are an idealist with no real perception of what really goes on in the world. You want a soft foreign policy that would mold to the ideals and goals of other nations which would directly harm the U.S. My reply was not hypocritical in the least if you read it. I simply said that our foreign policy is mapped out to serve our interests and not the interests of others.

Well said PacDragon.

O G San needs to understand that just because he believes U.S. foreign policy is hypocritical of U.S. values such as democracy, doesn't mean all arguments that support U.S. foreign policy are hypocritical.

BriRyJor,

"O G San needs to understand that just because he believes U.S. foreign policy is hypocritical of U.S. values such as democracy, doesn't mean all arguments that support U.S. foreign policy are hypocritical."

Your criticism is valid, my use of language in the post when I wrote: "OK, then drop the hypocritical rhetoric." was too vague. I was refering to the US, not to you in particular. I can see how you thought I was refering to you and it's my fault for not being specific enough in my choice of words.

I know that your line of argument is not hypocritical. I dont agree with you because I believe, in the long term, it's not in America's interest to prop up despotic regimes across the world.

An excellent and thought provoking article. I dont think Americans really understand (or care?) what people in other countries really think of them. I was shocked after September 11 2001 when a (very religious) South American friend of mine said she had no sympathy for the US. Her comment was something like "now they know how it feels". The US had been exporting terrorism to South America (training and supporting death squads) to destabilise governments unsympathetic to US interests for decades.
It seems to me that the US claims it supports democracy but only as long as it agrees with US interests. What is democracy after all? The simple answer is that it is election of the government by the people. But go beyond this and we find various flavours of democracy for example first past the post vs proportional representation. In fact there are so many different forms of democracy throughout this world that it is mind boggling. The people of any country have to want democracy and, once they have decided that do they must then decide what type of democracy that they want. In Iraq the US are not only telling the Iraqis that they must have democracy but also telling them what type of democracy they must have. The democracy that the US is trying to impose is one sympathetic to US interests, they will never allow one person one vote as this will bring about a Shi-ite dominated government which will almost certainly have close ties with Iran. Imposing a democracy on a people can never work and the attempt will probably lead to civil war.
The approach to the war on terrorism is flawed and doomed to failure in its current approach. One side says that the terrorists are fanatics and wish to impose their systems on to the west (mind you the west wants to do the same to them) and the solution is to root them out by force. The other side says that the terrorists are the dispossesed that have been left behind by ecconomic progress and the solution is to resdistribute some of the wealth and improve their lives. The real answer is that both points are valid. There are groups out there that despise the west because of our way of life but these groups would get no where without a continuous stream of disaffected people who feel that while countries like America flaunt their wealth they (the people) are struggling to feed their families. If you think about the 'successful' terrorist groups (i.e. those that have lasted a long time) as opposed to those that die out quickly (e.g. Bader Meinhoff) the difference to me is that those that last a long time are those supported by the people they represent. While countries like the US, Britain and Australia continue to exclude poorer countries from the 'ecconomic' miracle there will always be the dispossesed for the real terrorists to exploit. The US can persue foreign policy purely for its own interest (as people suggest here) but if they continue to do so they must be prepared for the backlash.

The question of what is best for the US needs to be overlapped with what is best for the people being affected.

Within the US, what is best for the US is obviously the correct choice.

But what about elsewhere? What about Columbia? Do they have a right to their own democracy or should US interests allow the US to destabilise the country and place people willing to give the US cheap oil in charge?

What about Iraq? Do their have a right to their own democracy or should US interests allow the US to place it's own chosen leaders and form of government in charge?

Best for the US is not an acceptable foreign policy. It's a domestic policy.

Acceptable foreign policies require the wishes and desires of the local populations to be at least considered if not always respected.

Paul.

I consider the US foreign policy, as a whole, to have been of great benefit to the world.

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa.  How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not?

The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan. Meanwhile, France participates in joint excercises with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan during the Taiwanese elections.

The US not only liberated Europe but it paid for its reconstruction. Same for Japan. By contrast, the Soviet Union pillaged Germany and Eastern Europe. Some 100,000 German women were raped in 1945 alone by Russian soldiers.

South Korea, which provides a lot of the computer goods you guys use to bitch about the United States, exists today because of US foreign policy.

Western Europe, which regularly gets uppity about US foreign policy, is free today because the US was willing to put its own cities on the line in the face of Soviet nuclear intimdation.

Most of you, I assume, drive cars but act like oil somehow comes from a magic fairie land. The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime.

And for all the talk about "squandering" world "good will" after 9/11 with the Iraq invasion, let us not forget Afghanistan where non-US help was minimal (a couple hundred Canadians, a handful of Germans, a couple French planes). That was the material result of "good will". No wonder Bush decided he could do without more "good will" in Iraq.

Which reminds me, Iraq, a country whose fascist dictator threw opponents and children of opponents into plastic shredders, cut out tongues, and created mass graveyards that made anything in Kosovo look like a joke, is now free of him thanks to US foreign policy. It should be pointed out that the whole middle-east mess can be laid at the hands of European colonialism.

The United States is currently helping out in Haiti. A country whose been poverty stricken since the French in the 19th century basically sucked the wealth out of it through a series of tribute payments. Most people don't bother to look into what messed up Haiti but I suspect many US haters suspect that somehow the US is at fault here too regardless of the facts.

There is also the billions of dollars in foreign aid the US provides to countries around the world. More so than any other country. The EU nations spend the least per GDP of any group of countries in the world on such aid.

Speaking of the EU and its abilities... after standing by and watching ethnic cleansing go on in its own back yard, the US stopped Serbia from doing the same in Kosovo.

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing, Stevendedalus?