Selective engagement as basis for foreign policy

Throughout his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump focused on an “America First” policy, a foreign policy centered around isolationism. However, depending on the issue, Trump has varied his foreign policies, pursuing isolationist policies, as well as interventionist policies — for example, in his choice to strike Syria in response to chemical weapons attacks. And sometimes, President Trump’s policies are simply somewhere in the middle.

Though some critique Trump’s seemingly middleground policies, in an everincreasing globalized world — where events across the pond or even across the world have direct impact on our United States homeland — pursuing a policy of selective engagement is the best course of action.

Selective engagement’s goals lie somewhere between that of isolationism and interventionism. Advocates of selective engagement acknowledge that the United

States does not have the resources to control the entire world and cannot intervene in every problematic situation globally. However, selective engagement also understands the need for the United States to maintain an effective role in the international system.

If the United States practices complete isolationism, we risk turmoil in key regions that have direct effects on life here. The United States must focus on prioritizing regions across the globe and creating strategic policies that preserve peace, as well as U.S. resources.

Take Iran, for example. Tensions between the United States and Iran continue to heighten, spilling over into increased turmoil and tension in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz — a region that is critical for global oil transport for the United

States and allies. Iran is a priority national security issue to the United States because of the threats

Iran poses — through its support for terrorism across the Middle East, its nuclear interests, and its human rights abuses. Threats in this region have a direct impact on

U.S. national security interests and those of our regional allies — for example, given our defense pact with Israel, our efforts to stabilize Iraq, and our military bases across the Middle East.

Trump and the United States maintain a clear interest in Iran and this region. But because the administration acknowledges that neither going to war and intervening in Iran nor practicing complete isolationism are in the United States’ best interests, they must acknowledge that selective engagement offers the most pragmatic solution.

Though the Trump administration has pursued crippling sanctions to get to its end goal without complete intervention — sanctions alone are not the silver bullet. The United States must pursue a broader strategy, founded in the ethos of selective engagement. Given the destabilizing role that Iran plays in international security and general world order, the United States needs to play a managed leadership role to effectively address this situation. One option the United States could pursue would be to establish an international coalition, bringing everyone back to the table. This would allow the United States to clearly manage and prioritize a critical region, without the use of U.S. resources that would be required with direct military intervention in Iran.

While playing a leadership role in addressing Iran is the most pragmatic and logical solution in this specific case, this strategy is not a universal remedy for all global conflicts or threats. Given that selective engagement recognizes the need to prioritize U.S. resources, not only to help achieve our goals but also to maintain our credibility, there are areas and issues internationally where the United States simply may not be able to play a leadership role.

For example, we can look to Nicaragua. The country is currently coping with a political and economic crisis, and its leader has been brutally repressing dissent. The United States has responded with some sanctions targeting human rights abuses, but its policy toward Nicaragua is still generally passive. Though some may critique America’s lack of action, the logic of selective engagement supports this lack of intervention or leadership in the Nicaragua crisis. The crisis in Nicaragua does not have clear, direct effects on our homeland, which would support the United States’ limited action there under a selective engagement policy.

History proves that when the United States does not take a leadership role in addressing key threats or conflicts internationally, things go awry (take the Rwandan Genocide, for example). However, intervention in every case would result in a lack of credibility, a reputation bullying, a waste of resources, and ultimately, failure in achieving our related national security objectives.

The United States and others have paid the price for unnecessary intervention in many cases such as Iraq, where our intervention created a breeding ground for terrorism, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the persecution of minorities, and mass migration into Europe, among other effects. To best accomplish the range of foreign policy goals, the United States must base its national security strategies in a policy of selective engagement, and adequately focus on the most pertinent threats. Only then will the United States see the results it wants.

History proves that when the United States does not take a leadership role in addressing key threats or conflicts internationally, things go awry (take the Rwandan Genocide, for example). However, intervention in every case would result in a lack of credibility, a reputation bullying, a waste of resources, and ultimately, failure in achieving our related national security objectives

Emma Osman