Logic of Liberal Internationalism
Liberal internationalism is the most viable foreign policy doctrine that the United States can adopt to address the current situation in Sudan. Over the past century global interdependence has grown extensively to the point that rarely do issues arise that do not impact multiple countries simultaneously. This interdependence has resulted in significantly limiting the role of singular nation and limited coalitions and elevating the status of international institutions. While interdependence has indeed facilitated the widespread diffusion of technology, trade and commerce and greatly decreased costs of communication, it has also brought about as a direct consequence of globalization, an increase in “ethnic, class, and ideological polarizations” that has a led to massacres and civil wars such as the ongoing Darfur genocide. The basis of liberal internationalism is cooperative multilateralism which calls for the United States to work in concert with other members of the international community to forge a united policy to address shared global issue of Sudanese civil war.
While the United States cannot effectively and should not address the situation in Darfur unilaterally, it should make efforts to organize an international coalition to collectively bring peace and stability to the region because it in the best interest of the US and other members of the international community. Conflicts such as the one in Sudan use up precious time and resources, and greatly hinder the world’s ability to engage global issues and overall stability. Furthermore, a return to peace and stability in the region will give the US, along with other developed industrial nations, access to a new market. To go about the creation of multilateral coalition, the United States should enlist the help of such international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, European Union and WTO. United States, being a member of the UN Security Council could work with the other permanent members in deploying an international peacekeeping force, use diplomatic channels to increase the African Union peacekeeping troops in Sudan, and engage international organizations such as the WTO, World Bank and IMF to ensure humanitarian aid to the millions whose lives have been ravaged by the ongoing violence. Other nonstate actors that the US should enlist the help of include international NGOs and transnational/multinational corporations to exert pressure. As liberal internationalism stresses, it is in the national interest of the United States to strengthen and aid in the development of multinational institutions such as the UN because such institutions not only facilitate diplomacy and cooperation in the international arena, but also significantly decrease the pressure on the US for unilateral action and allow for greater sharing of costs among members of the international community. Additionally, United States must acknowledge the declining relevance of military action and economic sanctions when applied unilaterally to solve complex modern day global problems such as the situation in Darfur. The threat of unilateral action of any kind is neither effective nor serves the best interest of the United States when dealing with global issues. Instead, United States should generate support for collective action. Research has shown military or economic pressure when applied collectively is far more effective than when applied unilaterally. But despite the increase in power of international institutions, the United States must not take a back seat, but instead play a leadership role and use its broad resources to influence, but refrain from dominating or controlling international affairs. US must in all terms avoid dictating policy and familiarize itself with the concept of “multiple leadership” and its status as first among equals. US should most definitely address the critical situation in Sudan, but see to it that it shares not only the financial burdens that is associated with bring stability back in the country, but also the significant logistical burdens that will be associated.
Lastly, as ingrained in the doctrine of liberal internationalism, it is the moral responsibility of the United States because of its tremendous resources to work together with other countries and international institutions in formulating and enforcing policies of collective interest. United States is obligated to work together with other nations to establish a common path to restoring stability and peace in the country. The policies of liberal internationalism provide the right balance in United States involvement in international affairs because now it can share many of its international burdens as part of an international coalition to address a crime that the entire human race is collectively responsible to stop and prevent from ever taking place again.
The Logic of Hegemonism
It is my firm belief that the United States, being the world’s most powerful country and sole superpower, should adopt a Hegemonic foreign policy doctrine to address the current situation in Darfur. United States has a duty to provide effective leadership to the world in order to maintain efficient functioning of international political and economic systems which are under threat due to current scenario in the Darfur region. In order to maintain international stability, the US must utilize its Hegemonic powers and maintain the Pax Americana. US must try to organize an international coalition to bring peace, stability and humanitarian aid to Sudan, but should the need arise, as the leader in the greater international community, it should act unilaterally to maintain the status quo and restore order in Sudan. (The UN Security Council has repeatedly failed to impose economic sanctions or deploy peacekeeping troops in Sudan due to China’s use of veto)
An effective functioning of international systems entails minimizing both international and internal instability. Wherever in the world there is instability, the United States must intervene because unless addressed, instability, like plague or cancer, can potentially spread to other regions and compromise the entire international system. The ongoing civil war in Sudan has created extensive turmoil, scarcities of vital life supporting resources, high inflation, exodus of refugees to neighboring countries, involvement of neighboring countries, violent conflict on the lines of ethnic, religious and cultural ties—all ingredients that can potentially spread instability beyond the boundaries of the region concerned. Not only can such internal instability escalate into regional and global instability, it also takes up necessary resources that could otherwise be used to solve international problems such as increasing poverty and HIV infections. US must fulfill it duty as the world’s police officer and successfully deter every attempt to generate instability.
As part of greater stability in the international system, US must also look after the effective functioning of the international economic system. Sudan, due to the current civil war, has been cut off by international trade preventing efficient outflow and inflow of products and services. A stable Sudan could again open its markets for Western products and services and perhaps ease the global pressure on energy prices due to Sudan extensive oil and gas reserves. A stable Sudan is in the best interest of a growing global economy and a growing global economy is critical for an expanding American economy.
It is critical that the United States plays a role to end the Darfur genocide because it is the only capable leader on the world stage. No other rising power or developed country can match the resources that the United States has under its disposal—economic leverage, military strength, influence and resource base. The US GDP comes in at $10.1 trillion, a staggering figure by any standards. The largess of the US economic might is further reflected in its export-import, foreign aid and investment figures. The US due to its economic prowess and large monetary contributions exerts a significant influence over both IMF and the World Bank. US’s economic power gives it considerable leverage when negotiating and further legitimizes its status as the world’s first and sole superpower. The strength of the US armed forces is also unmated. The US army, navy and air force are the most technologically advanced and formidable in the world with presence throughout the world and extensive logistical and intelligence capabilities. The combination of these unique powers perch United States in a position to use its status to advance the progress of mankind and promote the virtues of freedom.
United States as part of its Hegemonic role can address the situation in Darfur in a combination or one of four ways. It can use deterrence or communicate with the corrupt Sudanese government through the use of threats or warnings. Secondly, it can utilize asymmetrical response in which the US can draw on one of its many strengths and exploit the weakness of the Janjaweed fighters and the defunct government or overreact in a way that forces the instigators of the violence into submission. Lastly but most importantly it can organize an international coalition and push for a multilateral effort to end the Darfur genocide. A multilateral effort can be part of a greater diplomacy of reassurance where other countries can be reassured that American hegemony in no way endangers them.
Lastly it is the moral responsibility of the United States to intervene and resolve the Darfur crisis as a benevolent hegemonic leader. America carries with it a “moral burden” to carry out its duty of maintaining stability in the international system. Because the United States has all the necessary resources, it must act; if it fails to protect the good from the evil, it alone will be held responsible for the consequences. Therefore, the United States has a moral obligation to help the people of Darfur and reinstate stability in the international system. Maintaining international stability is also in the national interest of the United States as it allows it to maintain its own prosperity and security as the sole superpower of the world. The world is dependent on the United States as its hegemonic leader to bring by virtue of its actions as global policeman to an era of greater stability and cooperation in the international arena.
The Logic of Liberalism
The doctrine of liberalism is the most applicable US foreign policy doctrine when it comes to the current situation in Darfur. A liberalism-based foreign policy seeks to spread the virtues of individual and national liberty internationally through the means of free trade, establishment of democracy, the protection of universal human rights and protecting the self determination of nations. Over the past two years the people of Sudan have witnessed one of the most brutal denunciations of human rights in the history of mankind, as hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered and still thousands of others are imprisoned or have been subjugated to a life of slavery. The liberalist doctrine makes a strong argument for the United States to take calculated measures to end before it is too late the first genocide of the 21st century.
The establishment of liberal political and economic frameworks in countries such as Sudan primarily is in the national interest of United States as it bolsters its own security and helps protect its status as the sole superpower of the worlds. Sudan makes an especially good case for US intervention since it lacks or is deficient in all four of the established goals of liberalism doctrine of foreign policy. Sudan in its current form lacks a market economy as all economic decisions are subjugated to the approval of an authoritarian government that came to power through a military coup. A Sudanese economy based on the principles of free trade will be beneficial to both the people of Sudan and to American and other international exporters, opening new markets and therefore promoting both American and international prosperity. In addition, free trade works to promote peace through vested interest between international countries and to foster democracy through the economic benefits of having a market economy. Democracy is a necessary condition if a country is to make advancements, as it allows the nation to make rational economic decisions, gives greater stability and promotes the message of peace. A Democratic nation would provide greater regional stability and spread the doctrines of peace and democracy throughout the rest of the region and thus, in the long term, contribute to a more peaceful relationship among the countries in the region.
The strongest mandate that the United States possesses with liberalism based foreign policy to intervene in Sudan is the severe human rights violations. Human rights were internationally recognized as universal in the 20th century and inscribed in key documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sudan has violated all forms of human rights including civil, political, economic and social rights, the same rights that United States guarantees its inhabitants. It is in United States’ national interest to protect universal human rights as it leads to an effectual execution of governmental and public policy. The denial of human rights worldwide negatively impacts the United States and the interests of its citizens. Repression of rights and freedoms doesn’t allow for the diffusion of information that may be vital to the security of American citizens and therefore puts at risk the interests of the United States. Lastly, United States seeks to protect the universal right of self-determination and therefore it is the in best interests of the United States to condemn and work actively to remove spheres of influence and foreign dominations and support the natural forces of nationalism. Overall, it is in the United States best interest that other similar countries with similar virtues and framework make up the global neighborhood. Sudan presents a clear case for the United States to intervene and establish a nation that cherishes and nourishes similar democratic virtues and values. It is critical for the survival of democracy and the United States in the long term that more and more countries adopt similar democratic values. A world without democracies would greatly jeopardize and threaten world peace. American intervention in Sudan would only further legitimatize the American system of political and economic order.
One aspect of liberalism that separates it from the other doctrines is the availability of wide ranging options when it comes to ways of promoting freedom worldwide. The US can openly praise and reward nations for increasing freedom or condemn nations for human rights violations and decreasing freedom. In the more extreme scenario such as the one in Sudan, I strongly believe the US can utilize force to topple authoritarian governments. In between the extremes of praising and military action the US may want to employ the use of economic sanctions, diplomatic channels, UN resolutions, political encouragement and financial support for opposing parties and media to protect and establish the doctrines of freedom in the world.
Not only is it in United State’s best interest to promote freedom in liberalism based foreign policy doctrine in Sudan, but it is also morally imperative of the United States to protect human rights wherever in the world it is challenged. The expansion of market based economies, the protection of human rights and the promotion of national self-determination are moral obligations and therefore the US must decisively address the situation in Sudan within the framework of liberalism.