Motivation vs. causation

[Dayuhan]

Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

Were we really pushing for self-determination in those days, or was that a noble-sounding way of saying we wanted to break up the colonial system so we could trade into markets that the system locked us out of? Once Latin America was de-colonised we lost much of our interest in self-determination; I've no reason to believe it would have been any different elsewhere.

Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

Did that happen as we grew more powerful, or as the old colonial powers that once performed that function became less powerful and gave it up... or a bit of both?

When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

Again, I think not making moral demands had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with business: we wanted the contract. The Brits manipulated the US a bit as well, most notably in Iran.

In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and establish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?

Post cold war foreign policy management has been a mixed bag. We've not done all that badly in Latin America, where we've scaled back on direct intervention and learned to live with a broad political spectrum without completely losing influence or compromising national interests. We've not done all that badly in East Asia. There's a rough crescent running from Pakistan through the ME and parts of Africa that remains a total mess... but that's not altogether our doing by any means.