Foreign Affairs (Cont’d)
The Global Consequences
The intricate landscape of international relations often resembles a complex tapestry, woven from various threads of national interest, power dynamics, and cultural exchanges. Within this framework, the United States has historically positioned itself as a moral beacon, frequently advocating for the so-called “Golden Rule”—the principle of treating others as one would like to be treated. While this virtue is commendable in personal interactions, its application in the realm of geopolitics can be misguided and, at times, detrimental to U.S. interests and global stability.
To comprehend the implications of applying the Golden Rule to international relations, we must first acknowledge its noble intentions. Almost universally appealing as an ethical framework, the Golden Rule promotes empathy and mutual respect. As such, America has often touted this principle when addressing foreign policy issues, suggesting that by treating other nations fairly and justly, it can promote goodwill, stability, and cooperation. However, this idealistic approach overlooks the harsh realities of global politics and clashing interests, where moral posturing frequently leads to unintended consequences.
When the United States operates under the assumption that other countries will reciprocate goodwill, it risks a fundamental misunderstanding of the motives driving international actors. Nations operate based on strategic interests rather than ethical considerations. For example, in its dealings with authoritarian regimes, U.S. adherence to the Golden Rule puts us at a serious disadvantage, as these governments seek to exploit American idealism to their advantage while failing to reciprocate in kind. The consequences of such naive assumptions have resulted in numerous policy failures, where the United States found itself diplomatically and strategically marginalized.
No better example of this kind of thinking is revealed in George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address to the fledging nation: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the deadliest foes of a republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, or else it becomes the instrument of the very influence that should be avoided, instead of a defense against it.”
The application of the Golden Rule also inadvertently sends mixed signals to both allies and adversaries. What appears to be a virtuous act of kindness in one context might be seen as interference or aggression in another. Consequently, the U.S. risks either alienating allies or antagonizing adversaries, ultimately undermining its own geopolitical objectives. As such, a one-size-fits-all approach, as promoted by the Golden Rule, typically fails because it ignores the diverse motivations, histories, and power dynamics of different nations.
Story Continues Below
To hear Kent, Zen Garcia and S. Douglas Woodward, as they discuss the 5,500-year chronology from Adam to Christ, from the perspective of The Septuagint Bible, to confirm the contents of Tales of Forever, CLICK BELOW.
Story Continues From Above
This is why it’s so important to approach the complexities of international relationships with a more nuanced understanding of cultural and political contexts. In conflict zones, for instance, where humanitarian objectives eclipse strategic necessities, the United States may push for negotiations and conciliatory tactics, believing that kindness will prevail. However, this generally emboldens adversaries to continue aggressive behavior, interpreting diplomatic overtures as weakness rather than strength. Thus, the very principle intended to promote goodwill winds up leading instead to a cycle of exploitation and disillusionment.
The Golden Rule stands as a beacon of morality in individual lives, by encouraging empathy, understanding, and cooperation. However, when we shift our focus from personal interactions to the vast and intricate landscape of geopolitics, the beauty of this principle unravels, revealing a sobering reality that suggests a more pessimistic view of human relations on the global stage.
In our personal lives, the Golden Rule is seen as an effective tool. Families, friends, and communities often thrive on mutual respect and kindness. When individuals practice empathy, conflicts tend to be resolved more amicably, leading to harmonious relationships. This echoes the ideals of cooperation, where society benefits as members support one another. Yet, the moment we extrapolate these principles onto the geopolitical landscape, the situation becomes murky.
Just consider international relations, if you will, where reciprocity rarely works the same way as in our personal relationships. Instead of a shared understanding, we often encounter a cacophony of competing interests. When nation-states enact policies, they don’t usually prioritize mutual benefit; rather, they seek to maximize their own advantage, usually at the expense of weaker nations. This reality starkly contradicts the altruism suggested by the Golden Rule. Instead of inspiring a spirit of cooperation, we witness aggression, manipulation, and exploitation on a global scale.
Not only that, but the asymmetry of power between nations also complicates the application of this moral principle. In an ideal world, nations would treat each other with respect and dignity, adhering to mutually beneficial agreements. But this, unfortunately, isn’t always the case in the geopolitical arena, which is frequently marked by the imposition of will, notably by dominant countries exerting pressure on those less powerful. The resulting dynamic resembles more of a “survival of the fittest” scenario and less of a community governed by moral considerations, leaving the principles of empathy and understanding far behind.
Another point of contention is that the Golden Rule implicitly assumes a level of equality and goodwill that is often absent in international relations. Various countries operate with conflicting ideologies, histories, and values that don’t easily align with the simple act of treating others as one hopes to be treated. Cultural misunderstandings and historical animosities can aggravate tensions, leading to a cycle of hostility rather than cooperation. While individuals might strive for empathy in their local contexts, global interactions rarely reflect such ideals.
