The United States Foreign Policy Infringes On The Liberty Of Other Countries

Because of the recent events I thought it would be good to share something I wrote for my ethics class:

To talk about the role of the United States in the global arena is to necessarily start a discussion on a matter that is complex, controversial, and sensitive. John Stuart Mill gives us a foundation upon which we can approach the subject. Mill argued in On Liberty that one’s liberty extends to the point where it infringes on the rights of others. His ideas as they relate to the individual have been widely discussed elsewhere and therefore will not be addressed extensively here. What I would like to argue instead is that the right to liberty and sovereignty of nations should receive the same protection Mill argues for. We can then start asking whether nations have the right or freedom to meddle in the affairs of other nations and to what extent they should be allowed to do so. Mill speaks of the liberties of individuals as they relate to the government and society, and therefore when applied to broader groups, some differences could be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, a strong case can be built for why the United States fails in matters of respecting the liberty of other nations.

The people of the United States have the freedom to pursue whatever system of government they wish for themselves and to make their own decisions concerning their people. Nevertheless, the U.S. has a history of influencing other nations not only with good-intentioned diplomacy, but also through the illegal use of force and war. Mill provided a possible argument which would justify the U.S. in doing so. While Mill argued widely for the intrinsic value of the freedom of individuals, he noted exceptions to this liberty for groups which were not deemed developed enough for it. He argued that liberty cannot be granted to everybody; that “barbarians,” for example, need to be educated and civilized first. He wrote that “despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.” In their dealings with other nations and the world, the United States displays actions that implicitly portray it as the “despot” necessary to bring liberty to other places. Certainly in their dealings with nations throughout the Cold War and at other times, the United States took actions to curtail the liberty of people of other nations, as it has been widely documented in cases such as Chile.

Nevertheless, just as I believe that Mill was wrong in deeming people from other races or nations “barbarians” unworthy of possessing their own freedom, I also believe the U.S. is wrong in attempting to curtail the rights and liberties of other nations for their own self-seeking interests and/or their pretended desire to spread values to other nations that may not want such values. A recent example is Donald Trump’s continued proposal not only to build a wall in the border between Mexico and the U.S., but to have Mexico pay for it. The U.S. has the right to build as many walls as they want in their side of the border, but they do not have the right to force another sovereign nation to pay for such a decisions. This is a serious threat to the liberty of a nation which is already under pressures that limit their liberties in the global stage and in relationship with their neighbor. This example pales in comparison with the historical ways in which the United States has overreached in their own pursuits at the expense of Mexico. In the war between the United States and Mexico, for example, a great part of Mexico’s territory was taken away in the U.S.’s pursuit for land and a “Manifest Destiny” to expand across the continent. Ever since, the U.S. has had an influence on Mexico and other nations that I would argue, following Mill’s ideas, have seriously attempted against the freedoms of many.

It is immoral and concerning when a government acts against its own people in curtailing their liberties. It is even more concerning when a country curtails the liberties of other nations, affecting people who have had no connection with such country. Mill does provide an argument for cases in which such a despotism would not only be acceptable, but it would be commendable. If this idea had an influence on Western thought as much as his idea of the inalienable nature of liberty, it is no surprise that nations–most notably the United States–have undertaken actions that, to my eyes, seem unjustifiable.