Conservatives and foreign policy
We don’t need to “reinvent” conservatism, but we certainly do need to reacquaint millions of Americans—especially the young—with what conservatives believe about many issues. And foreign policy is an arena where conservative vision is most needed today.
If anyone had said in 1981 that Ronald Reagan would end the Cold War by building up U.S. military strength, by challenging the Soviet Union, by publicly denouncing Soviet tyranny while quietly waging relentless economic warfare against an evil empire, and even by holding Soviet communism up to international ridicule, that person would have been deemed a starry-eyed visionary. Yet that was Reagan’s achievement. For that, he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize.
George H.W. Bush’s domestic policies certainly could not be defended as conservative, but in foreign policy, he pressed for the reunification of Germany. The Soviets didn’t want it. The French and the British didn’t want it. Even the German Social Democrats resisted it. But Bush believed that America had given her word in international forums for half a century, and America under George H.W. Bush brought about this miracle. Germany today is free, united, democratic, peaceful, and a member of NATO. Who could have imagined such a stunning development when the senior Bush took the oath of office in January 1989? For his skill and determination, George H.W. Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, not only for that but also for greatly strengthening America’s alliance with Japan, a nation against whom he warred as our youngest Naval aviator.
Another deserving a Nobel Peace Prize was Harry Truman, for his sponsorship of the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of war-torn Western European democracies. He deserved a second for the Berlin Airlift—his peaceful yet forceful way of keeping freedom alive in that embattled city. Truman should also have won the award for the founding of NATO. It is true that we conservatives today praise Truman for policies that conservatives like Ohio’s Robert Taft strenuously opposed at the time. But to admit error and to learn from the past is a conservative trait, too.
Truman also wisely desegregated the U.S. armed forces, and America could never have stood strong against communist tyranny if every U.S. military base abroad was an advertisement for injustice.
John F. Kennedy helped lead America to the moon and beat the Soviets in the space race. He also taught developing nations that freedom, not communist dictatorship, was the real road to peace and development. His strong support for civil rights always took into account America’s leading role in the world. But he, too, was never honored with a Nobel.
Theodore Roosevelt did win the Nobel Peace Prize—for his negotiation of the end of the Russo-Japanese War. But he should have won a second one for sending the U.S. Navy’s “Great White Fleet” on an around-the-world journey to show the flag. By demonstrating American naval strength, T.R. helped mightily to preserve the peace with Japan and, for a decade, with Germany.
In every instance I’ve cited, peace was achieved or preserved through strength. But apart from T.R., the folks in Oslo never honored the leaders I’ve praised here. Instead, the award, unfortunately, has too often gone to people such as North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho, an apologist for mass murderers, and the blood-soaked Yasser Arafat, the man who invented airline hijacking for terrorist purposes, and who personally ordered the murder of U.S. ambassador Cleo Noel. What a disgrace these awards have been.
We conservatives need to award not a tarnished Nobel Peace Prize, but a “Noble” Peace Prize. These should go to those inspired and visionary leaders who recognize that peace is achieved not by apologizing everywhere for their country, and not by appeasing dictators, but by defending America’s principles and America’s allies, and always by keeping America’s defenses, in Ronald Reagan’s words: second to none.
You will notice that this is not a partisan list I’ve compiled. It includes Democrats and Republicans. Conservatives are not about meekly going along with one party, even when they are wrong. Greatness knows no party. Because Ronald Reagan put American ideals and American security before party membership, he was able to cooperate with Democrats at home and democrats abroad to achieve higher goals.
America is a great country because the leaders whom we have freely chosen have met the dangers and the opportunities of their times.
Finally, we need to remind ourselves and others that conservatives believe in American exceptionalism. We believe that it is in freedom, and not in some despotic UN bureaucracy, that man’s best hopes for peace and justice can be realized.
Ken Blackwell was the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top23 Comments to “Conservatives and foreign policy”
I agree that strength often leads to peace. And on a human level of understanding, makes perfect sense.
But what about turning the other cheek? Is that an individual principle, or can it be carried over to a nation?
Just a thought.
David
My blog
http://www.redletterbelievers.com
Report comment to moderator
Nobel Peach prize for Truman? Mr Blackwell Sir where is your editor?
Report comment to moderator
Council on Foreign Relations? Reagan opposed and was opposed by the CFR quite often. Hard to see how any real R man could be a card-carrying member of it.
Report comment to moderator
Editor right here.
Report comment to moderator
Hey look! It’s the Neo-con Manifesto!
Report comment to moderator
Ken Blackwell forgot to mention Jimmy Carter, he, uhhh, ummmmmmmmm he, uh? Well? he GOT one.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey! Why are you blushing? Blackwell makes a good case for a Nobel for Truman. Better than some who got it.
But I suspect Harry didn’t care. I didn’t like him at the time, but he approaches great as a president.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure if I would applaud for Truman for NATO, but desgregating the military was a good move.
Also, Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis should have been noted.
Report comment to moderator
CHAS: Ken made a case for him winning a “Peace” Prize, not a “Peach” prize, a mistake I introduced during editing.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, no big deal, it was funny! “Peach” sometimes works.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Rupzip, Turning the other cheek as a nation? Fascinating question.
Could it be that turning the other cheek (ttoc) is a directive only for people in tune with the Spirit of God who graciously and powerfully interceeds for them. What are the results of a person ttoc who is not dependent on the Spirit of God? And what of a nation not submissive God but upon self trying ttoc as a foreign policy?
Great question, I’ll study this one.
Report comment to moderator
Truman should DEFINITELY have received a Nobel Prize for his insistence on dropping not one, but TWO A-bombs on a Japan that was at the end of her rope militarily, and who had been attempting to open negotiations of terms of surrender. [/sarcasm]
But since it wasn’t UNCONDITIONAL surrender, we pretended not to hear.
It also appears that Truman (or his advisors) pressed for dropping those A-bombs as a means of demonstrating … er, I mean “preserving peace through” STRENGTH. I.e., I think it is quite plausible that we ravaged Japanese civilian centers in order to show Uncle Joe who was in charge.
I grant that I am merely speculating that Truman “nuked the Japs” in order to put the fear of God in the “Russkies.” I haven’t read anything that explicitly states or suggests this. But it certainly does align with what Mr. Blackwell has advocated here: “preserving peace by demonstrating strength.”
As to the alleged “necessity” of “numing the Japs,” hear Ralph Raico on the matter:
It can easily be argued that ignoring Japans request for a negotiated peace, followed by the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagaski — to say nothing of our firebombing of Dresden — constituted war crimes punishable under the international rules of war (derived from Christian/Western just war doctrine).
But then, who was gonna prosecute the United States of Godblessamerica, the Saviors of the World? (Perhaps “American Exceptionalism” also means that exception is made when America breaks the law?)
Report comment to moderator
Doug Wilson has said much of value re. genuine American Exceptionalism (as opposed to the cheap, messianic version trumpeted by the neo-conservatives and their apologists):
More from Doug Wilson on bogus “American Exceptionalism”:
More from Pastor Wilson on bogus vs. genuine American exceptionalism:
Now, contrast all that with Mr. Blackwell’s version of American Exceptionalism:
Finally, we need to remind ourselves and others that conservatives believe in American exceptionalism. We believe that it is in freedom, and not in some despotic UN bureaucracy, that man’s best hopes for peace and justice can be realized.
Of course, the nations of the world must submit to that freedom, even if we have to expend American blood and treasure to impose … er deliver …, umm, even if we have to “selflessly provide” it. (Yeah, that’s the ticket.)
Never mind that we have succumbed to and promoted the lie that genuine liberty can be enjoyed apart from submission to religious and spiritual truth:
Mrs. Frank just reminded me that we incinerated untold number of innocent Christian civilians in our unlawful attacks on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Yeah, a Peace prize … that’s what Truman deserved.
Report comment to moderator
Rome achieved peace through strength, but how many conservatives would claim that method as a charter principle? Strength alone is not the answer.
A better principle would be peace through peace. In other words, we should side with those who love peace and hinder, deter and yes, even annihilate those who oppose it. You achieve peace by making sure that the side who wants peace wins.
But conservatives can’t claim the high road in foreign policy any more. Obama is blasting the hell out of our Pakistani allies. And Bush tainted everything conservative by being economically liberal and make a mess of the war by politicizing it and not understanding the enemy.
Conservative principles are extremely unpopular right now, primarily because the left-wing media megaphone is working, to recast conservatism as not only wrong but immoral (as Obama said today). To listen to the government and its media mouthpiece tell it, conservatives are angry unAmerican terrorist mobsters.
Liberal historians have successfully blamed everything wrong in history on conservative thought. The great Depression is blamed on greed, ignoring Federal monetary policy, inflating the money supply, stringent regulations and doubling income taxes on the wealthy killed jobs and wiped out the savings of the middle class. They have successfully pinned Fascism on the right, even though all nationalist socialist militaristic states in the last hundred years have been either communist or socialist, i.e. to the far left.
Conservatives should be arguing not only for a separation of church and state, but a separation of economy and state.
Obama and Barney Frank and Pelosi and Reid etc. are making all of the same classic mistakes that Woodrow Wilson made that led up to the Depression and Hoover’s interventionist policies and tariffs and wage controls which prolonged it. Barney Frank has done more damage to the American economy than anyone in history and he is hailed as a liberal hero. Leftist policies have consistently succeeded in ruining the American economy and yet they are hailed as the answer to all our ills.
Report comment to moderator
OK, Frank. Stop with all the beating around the bush.
While I’m not quite where you’re at, I have long been troubled by Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the bombing of European population centers, most notably Dresden. In each case, pragmatism seems to have overcome principle: “It’ll work! No other justification is needed.”
In the case of Japan, mid-1945, we’d already taken Iwo Jima, Tinian, and everything south. Their navy was decimated (critically short of naval aircraft and flattops, to say nothing of trained pilots) as was their merchant fleet, hence, they could not do much to stop a naval blockade. Russia was about to declare war. In their weakened state, this would have given them pause. There were some noises about a negotiated peace.
The conventional wisdom is that an invasion of the Home Islands would have been both immediately necessary and grievously costly in terms of the lives of American servicemen. I don’t really doubt the latter, but I do question the former. Couldn’t they have been choked with a naval quarantine, and scared with a demonstration of the bomb on an unpopulated area? I fear that the decision to proceed against the cities was an act of bloody vengeance, and not one of military necessity. Perhaps Frank’s show-the-Rooskies thesis fits in too, altho I’ve not heard it before.
Report comment to moderator
I’m mulling over your points Frank, some of them good, some of them bitter. Not sure if this is what you’re saying, but what I hear is that the “war crime” of bombing Japan was all about bluster, hubris and arrogance, showing the Japs who’s in charge. And that if you want to commit war crimes, choose a flight crew of Christians. Are you a Quaker?
Well, having traveled often to Japan and the Orient and as the father of a Marine serving in Japan, I acknowledge the tragedy of WWII and the number of deaths in that war. I love Japan and the Japanese people and I am very sorry for their suffering.
However during WWII, our enemy acted with unprecedented brutality, raping and pillaging and torturing and causing extremely high death tolls. They executed a sneak attack on the US. Iwo Jima, Okinawa so many deaths, more than any other battle except for (the Bulge). All of it unnecessary if our enemy would not have fought us.
The death toll of the atomic bombs was about 220,000 people. More Japanese died in just two battles in the Pacific. How much higher would the death toll have been for both sides had we have invaded Japan.
How many more deaths would have been acceptable to you? If half of the 220,000 were Americans or better yet, Christians would that make you feel better?
When fighting for peace, the enemies of peace must be defeated as quickly and definitively as possible. I have misgivings about the annihilation of a civilian population, but America’s attempt to fight sanitized wars have been an abysmal failure.
If war is hell, why not end it as quickly as possible?
Report comment to moderator
XION (21): If war is hell, why not end it as quickly as possible?
Frank: If that statement sums up your thoughts on the matter, I would refer you back to my first post at (13) (my emphasis):
One of the tenets of Christian/Western Just War doctrine is that military personnel are legitimate targets, non-combatants are not.
Now consider once again the implications of trying to justify the deaths of Japanese non-combatants (illegitimate targets) in order to save the lives of Allied soldiers (legitimate targets).
The issue isn’t merely numbers (”enemy” lives lost vs. American lives saved); the issue is the morality of using weapons of mass destruction against civilian population centers (as an expedient — ”We gotta end this war ASAP!”), rather than using other available, more ethical, options.
Report comment to moderator
#22 You have a good point Frank. Definitely something to think about. But I don’t see how stopping an aggressor somehow justifies every imaginable atrocity. Who is doing that?
The opposite end of the spectrum is try to fight a sanitized war allowing countless American sons and daughters to die trying to make sure that every last combatant is really bad. Must every soldier go through a conflicted self-reflection about the meaning of good and evil and whether every bullet they expend is in fact used only against the guilty even without a trial by their peers?
If one nation attacks another nation, why is it immoral to attack back hard end it immediately? Are citizens who work in factories and support the war effort in civilian ways not culpable? And why is the government that initiated the attack not responsible for their own citizens whom they have placed at risk?
The argument is similar to Hamas terrorists who use innocent civilians as human shields. When an innocent human used as a shield is killed, why is Hamas never blamed for putting them in harms way?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!