The United States has received a lot of attention for its involvement and participation in the international family. The US has become an international leader by engaging in two major world wars, encouraging temporary isolationism, fighting and vigorously advocating democracy. The US is obligated to use its power to address injustices, promote American values, maintain order at home as well as abroad by being given this title. Samuel Huntington (political scientist) formulated this statement. Philosophers such as Voltaire, John Locke and Immanuel Kant have shaped liberalism. It emphasizes the interdependence of substate actors and states as key actors within the international system.

This ideology emphasizes individuality, their unique human nature, complex interdependence and ideological precedence. It also stresses economic prowess and the pursuit of common interests. Liberalism highlights the impact of globalization, integration and interdependence. Because nations are dependent on each other and the international society doesn’t operate in anarchy, moral concepts hold greater weight. This means that liberals can place more importance on moral and political values. Huntington’s words mirror many liberal characteristics. He refers to the importance for the spreading of moral and ideological value, such as freedom and democracy. These values come from American exceptionalism. This ideology is what sets America apart and gives it an advantage over other nations. These moral principles play a significant role in decision-making, both for individuals and nations. Liberals realize that global policy must consider cultural, religious, as well as economic, issues. There is a need for states that act morally in international forums and promote ideologies to other countries who are not qualified to do so.

This outlook is in line with Huntington’s foreign policies views. The US has an obvious and clear obligation to expand its influence on other countries and maintain international order. This view is opposed by political realists. They argue that ideology does not belong in international relations and that foreign policy goals are determined solely by power. They also claim that morality is different from morality for states. Huntington’s advocate says otherwise. American exceptionalism is the reason the US promotes virtuous American values and the improvement of citizens within and outside the US. The state is more than just a place that values and pursues its own interests. The nation would be just as willing to help a fellow citizen in distress if it were his/her moral duty,

Complex interdependence is also a key component of Huntington’s liberal analysis on the US primacy. Interdependence means that the belief is that wealth and prosperity in states are inextricably tied to each other. Liberal thought holds that states must cooperate because they are in their best interests. The international hostility that states experience is detrimental to everyone’s interest, so they should cooperate. Liberalism promotes more integration in the world through greater economic kinship. Both the US and other countries benefit from the integration of economic systems.

Liberals say that economic superiority will outweigh military skill in the resolution of conflicts. External conflict, trade imbalances and environmental problems cannot be solved by military intervention. This is related to Huntington’s underlying idea. To promote American values, the US should engage with other countries and be active in international affairs. This would require both interdependence as well as globalization. Huntington is also a proponent of the notion of “open economies” as well as welfare. But this cannot be done without economic means. The US would be open to free trade and the fusion of economic structures. It would also benefit other countries. The conflict between liberals and realists lies in the outside dependence and effectiveness of military power. Realists are skeptical of foreign intentions and approach international relations with a high degree of skepticism. Realists would not advise forming alliances or relying heavily on foreign nations for their resources. Military conflict is inevitable, but it’s also effective. Military power is the only way to maintain and gain control over the international population.

The statement ends by stating that all nations should pursue the common good because the policies of the US inherently impact individuals both inside and outside the US. Huntington tells us that “the sustained global primacy of the US is key to the welfare, security, and future of freedom and democracy in the world.” His argument is that there is no regulation or policy that is only applicable to the domestic ground. The US’s domestic and international policies eventually impact each other. For example, pushing for pollution control and pushing for environmental-friendly measures would be enacted for the safety of the individuals within the nation.

However, endorsing this policy would impact the nation’s trading partners, as imports and resources must be restricted to conservationist-based equipment. So, it becomes difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic policy. Proposals that impact one group will impact all. Huntington believes that foreign policy will merge with domestic policies. The US’s dominion over other countries would make Americans safer. Huntington and liberals both believe that there is an inherent connection between domestic and foreign affairs. Political realists at the other end refuse to recognize this link. They prefer to separate the spheres of domestic and global issues. Huntington and liberals admit to an element that links the realms, however.

Samuel Huntington’s words echo liberal characteristics. He speaks out about the importance of spreading moral values and US participation in international communities and sustained economic relationships. He also advocates for the common interests of all nations. His statement represents the conviction of many American exceptionists and foreign policymakers. The US is morally bound to address and rectify international injustices and intervene when necessary. Huntington provides a positive and common answer, but it exaggerates America’s capabilities in foreign policy. While the US as the global power and hegemon is bound to support weaker countries, it should limit its military involvement and exercise moderation. A single nation can have absolute control over the global affairs of other nations, leading to unnecessary power accumulation. Full-scale US intervention can lead to failed governments in countries and damage the US’s ties with these nations. As examples of unneeded involvement, consider Yemen, Afghanistan, Cuba, and Yemen. The US should instead use its soft power to take advantage of better long-term options.

gabrieldillon