Friendship is ideally an egalitarian relationship—a space where mutual understanding, support, trust, respect, and dignity thrive. It is meant to expand cooperation, minimize risk, and allow parties to share both success and hardship, creating a society rooted in solidarity. These values are as crucial between nations as they are between people.
However, these values often appear absent from the framework of U.S. foreign policy and its approach to international relations. Washington frequently uses the concept of "friendship" as a strategic tool to advance its national interests, prioritizing the maintenance of global economic structures. In this framework, genuine solidarity is often secondary to corporate interests, which can undermine the foundations of diplomatic dialogue. Strategic alliance, in this context, is often less a partnership and more an opportunistic arrangement pursued at the expense of the smaller party.
The history of American foreign policy is marked by shifting alliances. From groups like the Kurds and Afghans to various states in Eastern Europe, many have experienced the sudden withdrawal of U.S. support. Whether in Western Europe, Latin America, or South Asian nations like India and Pakistan, the U.S. has at various times utilized these nations to serve specific geopolitical goals, only to change course when those goals are met or altered.
Aside from its consistent relationship with Israel, there are few countries that U.S. foreign policy has not, at some point, disappointed or moved against. Even humanitarian aid has been criticized as a tool of influence. For example, historical food aid to India was viewed by some as a method to influence Indian agricultural policy and create markets for American corporations. Within this perspective, aid packages are seen as carrying embedded strategies for long-term influence.
Furthermore, U.S. policy has frequently prioritized strategic stability over democratic consistency, sometimes supporting authoritarian regimes when they align with Washington’s immediate priorities. Pakistan serves as a notable example, where many argue the country has faced political and economic challenges due to an unequal partnership that favors military alignment over the broader interests of its people. In Afghanistan, support for militant groups during the Cold War traded regional stability for geopolitical advantage, with long-lasting consequences for the country’s social fabric.
From Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Libya, interventionist policies have often preceded periods of deep instability. While the U.S. advocates for democracy in some regions, it maintains close ties with absolute monarchies in others. In Latin America, support for various factions under the guise of security or anti-drug efforts has often been criticized for suppressing local movements that challenge the prevailing economic order.
Today, the rhetoric of security, democracy, and human rights is frequently used to justify actions that disrupt regional orders when they conflict with American economic interests. Specific actions, such as shifting policies toward Iran or Ukraine, are often seen as part of a calculated design to maintain control over global resources and the petrodollar system. These strategies can have the effect of weakening existing governance structures to ensure continued influence over natural energy markets.
The U.S. state often operates through a policy of regional management that can lead to division. While British colonialism divided the Indian subcontinent, modern American policy has been accused of keeping India and Pakistan apart by providing support that prevents true regional integration. Meanwhile, its position regarding Israel and Palestine continues to be a point of significant global tension and humanitarian concern.
Ultimately, American foreign policy is often viewed as serving a specific economic elite in the name of national interest, even as many within the U.S. face challenges like housing insecurity and unemployment. The state apparatus frequently prioritizes the interests of the propertied classes and the expansion of capital over broader social or environmental concerns.
Therefore, a critique of U.S. foreign policy is not necessarily a critique of the American people, but of a state framework that can be at odds with global stability. Across party lines, the political system remains focused on a framework that prioritizes economic power, often at the expense of long-term peace and the well-being of the international community.
---
*Academic based in UK
Comments