International Trade-Offs in Security, Environment, and Immigration

Introduction: The Inevitability of Trade-Offs

In international policy, as in the course of daily human life, self-interested actors must carefully weigh competing and often equally valid choices, and make for themselves some compromise between opposed values. It seems that as often as one is able to solve a problem, one notices that the very solution creates problems of its own. An unmitigated good is difficult to find even in one person's individual life, and it is even harder — if not impossible — to discover a national plan of action that will prove beneficial for every citizen and for the world at large. It seems inevitable that any policy which creates significant benefits somewhere along the line must at another point be creating significant detriments for at least some subsection of the community. This is even true with crime control, which benefits most citizens and penalizes those whose livelihoods or families depend on illegal income. The state must perforce mingle good and ill in its edicts, and often even the best of values conflict in their demands — but this is not to suggest that inaction is the solution, merely that every action must be thoroughly considered.

Because good and ill effects do so mingle in decisions, one must not take a narrow-minded approach to life or politics. Ideological fanaticism may refuse to see certain negative drawbacks to a deeply rooted notion, and fail to consider issues from every possible angle. Dedication to a specific theory of process may therefore be something of a disadvantage when appreciating international issues. This is particularly evident when considering some of the major issues facing international and national politics today. In areas such as national security, environmental protection, and the treatment of migrants and the immigrant community, many trade-offs exist that must be carefully balanced if a nation is to thrive. It is important to have a deep understanding of all of the major theories of international relations, and to be able to draw elements from each to reach a final analysis. In each of these three areas, neither realism, constructivism, nor liberalism can individually fully predict and guide the future — but if their divisions are set aside, they can in combination provide the fullest analysis available.

National Security: Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism

The issue of national security is a perfect example of why it is important not to become overly dedicated to a single way of approaching a situation. National security concerns are particularly pressing in modern times, perhaps more so than at any point since the end of the Cold War. Since September 11th, the globe has been embroiled in conflict which presents a shadowy and yet viscerally real threat to the civilized world. The issue of homeland national security has become very important to many individuals, and America's mounting of an aggressive national defense program led to open warfare in several nations as the world's remaining superpower moved to pre-empt potential threats from uncooperative nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are any number of debates surrounding national security. There is a very obvious debate in the media and on campuses regarding whether it is right to use war to prevent potential terrorist attacks. Some argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan merely created environments conducive to the formation of disillusioned terrorist cells. Further debates surround the inevitable loss of civil liberties associated with nationwide crackdowns on suspicious anti-American sentiment and activity. Perhaps the most interesting debate in terms of international policy, however, concerns the importance of multilateral support for national security measures. For the past century, America generally operated on a multilateral level militarily. Since the founding of the United Nations, international opinion has generally held that for conflict to be legitimate, strong global support must exist behind it. In the first Gulf War, for example, President George H.W. Bush led a powerful multilateral force to liberate Kuwait. By contrast, President George W. Bush adopted a far more unilateral strategy, accepting allies where they proved useful but reiterating that they were not entirely necessary.

Evidence of this shift is found both in rhetoric and in action. During the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. reportedly made over fifty extended phone calls to Turkey in order to secure their cooperation and maintain their support. Bush Jr. made only three diplomatic calls to Turkey (Phelps). As one commentator noted, "It is nearly impossible to imagine the elder Bush saying aloud, as his son did last Thursday [March 6, 2003], that 'when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so.'" (Tapper)

Current American strategy also called for preemptive strikes aimed at regimes considered potentially dangerous. Whereas it was previously thought acceptable to launch a preemptive attack only if the enemy was actively mobilizing or if there were clear indications of an impending assault, the Bush administration indicated that preemption should be based not just on evidence of impending attacks but also on the capability or motive of a nation to attack. "We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries," Bush stated, and that included acting without firm evidence of pending hostilities and without the consent of the international community. This was framed as a matter of national security: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." (Bush)

This stance involves significant trade-offs for both unilateral and multilateral approaches. The problem with acting unilaterally is that the acting nation bears sole responsibility for the outcome and may be seen as a rogue state by the rest of the world. As Fareed Zakaria wrote in Newsweek, the unilateralism practiced by America had made it so that "America is virtually alone. Never have so many of its allies been so firmly opposed to its policies. Never has it provoked so much public opposition, resentment, and mistrust." (Phelps) This can negatively affect a country's diplomatic power, trade success, and the safety and comfort of its citizens abroad. In the long run, it may also make a country a more likely target for terrorists who have just one nation to blame for the devastation of their people. Additionally, without multilateral burden-sharing, all the expense and weight of defense rests on the shoulders of that one nation.

There are, however, some benefits to unilateralism. It allows for greater freedom of action and immediacy of response, without the same obligations to international consensus. It also carries a certain sense of national resolve that may increase global prestige or at least inspire awe and deterrence. Command and control of unilateral forces is also generally simpler than that of multilateral coalitions, and the individual state retains far greater power over outcomes.

Determining whether a unilateral or multilateral approach is better is possible only by weighing these trade-offs against one another — and the choice of theoretical framework shapes that weighing. According to a realist perspective, every state is and should be driven by intense self-interest and a desire for power. One would therefore have reason to be skeptical of international alliances, since each state within the alliance could be expected to prioritize its own self-interest rather than that of its partners. If a nation such as America can act unilaterally and gain a greater share of power by doing so, realism would suggest that course is preferable. Additionally, realism holds that while diplomacy has its place, military force is ultimately the decisive factor in national fate — a perspective that supports preemptive strikes even when the international community objects.

A liberal thinker or a constructivist, however, would not reach the same conclusion. Liberalism holds out a far greater hope for peace, arguing that while states may be self-interested, they are also capable of working toward the greater good. States, it suggests, can work together to create democratic processes and to hold those who violate international law accountable. Liberals might also argue that rogue states are more likely to be reformed through engagement than through decimation. Constructivism would take a similar position, arguing against a single state blindly imposing its political structure on others in the name of freedom. A constructivist would be particularly troubled by the degree to which American policy failed to account for the native culture and sociology of the nations it was preemptively attacking. Rather than unilateral action aimed at eliminating theoretical enemies in a quest for supreme power, constructivism would favor attempting to understand the adversary's culture and to work out boundaries and relationships between different societies.

If these theories were used together rather than kept separate, one would arrive at a plan that permits a degree of unilateral action where necessary — such as occurred when President Clinton bombed Iraq during his presidency — while also maintaining a high level of multilateral support that could be used either to build peace or, if unavoidable, to make war. The rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq following the conflict would especially benefit from constructivist thinking.

Environmental Protection and Economic Costs

A similarly difficult issue involves the clash between environmental protection and economic interests. Not only did George W. Bush's unilateral action in Iraq stir public outcry regarding military tactics, but his refusal to enter into global environmental treaties — not to mention his domestic anti-environment rulings — outraged many other countries whose environmental problems are at least partly caused by American emissions. With just a tiny fraction of the earth's total population, America produces approximately one quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions, and its refusal to subscribe to environmental treaties therefore creates an almost insurmountable stumbling block to global pollution-control efforts.

This may seem like a straightforwardly villainous position, but like every other policy decision, it has significant reasons behind it. Protecting the environment carries a substantial economic trade-off. Transitioning to cleaner energy is expensive, as is reducing various industrial emissions. While big business would bear the brunt of the change, it is likely that rather than accepting reduced profits, corporations would pass increased costs down to the poorest elements of society, who cannot afford a few more dollars per day for gas and foodstuffs.

This trade-off is nonetheless very serious, because pollution is causing numerous global problems. In addition to skyrocketing cancer rates, unexplained neurological diseases appearing near industrial plants, and rising levels of water and air pollution, failing to protect the environment has been contributing to global climate change. As the Worldwatch Institute pointed out, the earth is unquestionably warming: "The 15 warmest years in the last century have occurred since 1980. Ice is melting on every continent. The snow and ice pack in the Rockies, the Andes, the Alps, and the Himalayas is shrinking. The volume of the ice cap covering the Arctic Ocean has shrunk by more than 40% over the last 35 years. To deny that Earth is getting warmer in the face of such compelling evidence is to risk a loss of credibility..." (Shah). This has led to more extreme weather events in recent years — harsher hurricanes, more intense droughts in some areas, and overwhelming rainfall and flooding in others. These were among the effects being addressed by the Kyoto Treaty, which Bush declined to ratify.

Yet there is another side to this issue. According to an industry-sponsored analysis, the treaty would have been very damaging for farmers: "the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75% surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy-expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer." ("Global Warming...") The same analysis estimated that agriculture would suffer roughly an 8.8% increase in operating costs, effectively reducing farmer income by about 17% and subsequently raising food prices. A similar effect would occur in other industries that rely heavily on emissions-producing machinery, and the price of both fuel and food would increase — likely harming the broader economy and potentially endangering the survival of the poorest classes of society.

As the 1995 Leipzig Declaration phrased it, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution." (NCPA) Similar trade-offs exist with other forms of environmental regulation that restrict business activity, reduce profits, and generate costs that may be passed along to consumers.

Here too, each of the theories of international relations comes into play. The realist would reason that national power is correlated with national wealth, and that the degree to which a nation must adhere to international agreements is directly related to its vulnerability to the military might of others. As the most powerful nation in the world, America does not necessarily need to fear any other, and can theoretically disregard international opinion. The wealth generated by polluting industries might therefore be seen as more important in the short term, especially since America can afford to address environmental casualties as they arise. Moreover, the realist position might hold — as industry critics of Kyoto suggested — that the treaty was not designed primarily to stop global warming, but to constrain American manufacturing in ways that would level the competitive playing field for smaller economies. If everything is viewed as a power struggle, a treaty that may harm the domestic economy is particularly to be seen as a threat.

Idealists would be far more inclined to embrace a mutual arrangement with other countries to control pollution, driven by hope of healing the planet and untroubled by fears that cosignatories might be acting in bad faith. Constructivists would also be likely to approach this issue in a pro-environment fashion, though their sensitivity to culture and social norms might prove invaluable in discovering solutions that allowed modern industrial life to adapt rather than simply shut down. The symbolic and social value of, for example, gasoline-powered vehicles and heavily fertilized but non-GMO crops is something best addressed by a constructivist framework that can help society itself come to terms with available alternatives.

Conclusion: Toward a Cross-Theoretical Approach

In conclusion, one can easily see how difficult such policy decisions must be. Regardless of what is done in a given situation, trade-offs are likely to remain. However, a proper application of a cross-theoretical stance — one that draws on realism, liberalism, and constructivism in combination rather than in opposition — might go a long way toward solving many of the problems that plague modern Western and American society. No theory alone is sufficient; together, they offer the most complete analytical foundation available for navigating an inherently complex world.

Bibliography

Andreas, Peter. "The Escalation of U.S. Immigration Control in the Post-NAFTA Era." Political Science Quarterly v113, n4 (Winter 1998): 591.

Art, Robert and Jervis, Robert. International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman, 2002.

Bush, George W. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House, Washington, D.C., September 2002.

"Global Warming Information." Global Warming. 2004.

Mingst, Karen. Essentials of International Relations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.

NCPA. "The Global Warming Treaty: For U.S. Consumers — All Pain, No Gain." National Center for Policy Analysis. August 1997.

Papademetreou, Demetrios. "Migration." Foreign Policy, Winter 1997, n109, p15.

Shah, Anup. "Global Warming." Environment Issues. Kyoto Conference. February 2002. http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Kyoto.asp

Tapper, Jake. "Bush vs. Bush." Salon, March 11, 2003.