Summer 1995
American Purpose
Issue 9, Volume 2

Publication Date: June 1, 1995
Posted: Thursday, June 6, 1995

This issue consists of a conversation with Elliot Abrams about many different subjects.  These subjects include 'The Rhythm to the American Foreign-policy Debate'; 'Monroe and Aquinas'; 'Whatever Happened to V-C Day?'; 'A Presidential Pantheon'; 'Bush, Revisited'; 'Defining "Humanitarian Intervention"'; 'The Responsibilities of Leadership'; 'Endgame in Cuba'; and 'Looking Toward 1996'.


In This Issue :

Arguments as Old as America
A Conversation With Elliott Abrams
During President Reagan's two administrations, Elliott Abrams held three senior State Department positions, as Assistant Secretary of State for, first, International Organization Affairs, then Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, and finally Inter-American Affairs. In the last two of these posts, Abrams was at the center of the ideological battles of the Cold War's endgame; and the fact that the history of the late eighties and early nineties wholly vindicated his analysis of world politics did little to assuage the venom of Mr. Abrams's enemies, who did not take kindly to the revelation that he had been comprehensively right, and they comprehensively wrong, about the central moral and strategic questions of U.S. foreign policy. But, as someone once said somewhere, there are gentler callings than high public office in these United States. [More]

The Rhythm to the American Foreign-policy Debate
George Weigel: In Security and Sacrifice, you describe a consistent rhythm to the American foreign-policy debate, a rhythm captured by the dual imagery of "security and sacrifice." In itself, that strikes me as an interesting claim: that what we usually call the "internationalist/isolationist" debate didn't start with Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. "America First" but has in fact been going on since the earliest days of the republic. Could you elaborate that claim a bit?  [More]

Monroe and Aquinas
  GW: In your book you make what struck me as a charming, if bold, intellectual move, describing the Monroe Doctrine as an early form of what we came to call in the 1980s the "democracy initiative." That is, the Monroe Doctrine was not simply an attempt to seal the Western Hemisphere off from Europe; it was an attempt to foster something positive within the Western Hemisphere (although, to be sure, that "something positive" was understood to redound to the benefit of the United States). Would you say a word about that analysis?  [More]

Whatever Happened to V-C Day?
GW: Let's jump ahead to today. We've just marked V-E Day. We're now arguing about V-J Day, or whether we can even call it that. What I'd like to ask is: Why was there no "V-C Day"? Why was the victory over communism never properly celebrated? Why, for six years, has there been no large-scale statement from a president of the United States, putting a clear interpretation on the events that unfolded between 1989 and 1991? One suspects that this has something to do with the presidential personalities involved; is there more?  [More]

A Presidential Pantheon
 GW: Let's stay with the White House for a moment. How would you rate the twentieth-century American presidents in terms of foreign-policy accomplishment?  [More]

Bush, Revisited
 GW: Let's talk about the Bush presidency. Bush quite rightly insisted on both the reunification of Germany and the incorporation of a reunified Germany within NATO; and he hung in there when the pressure got intense to abandon that position. He saw that Saddam Hussein's conquest of Kuwait couldn't be allowed to stand, and he did something about it, even if we'd both have grave questions about the endgame of the Gulf War. Those are things on the credit side of the ledger.  [More]

Defining "Humanitarian Intervention"
GW: "Humanitarian intervention" is a major post-Cold War buzzword. You discuss it a bit in your book. Do you have in mind a set of criteria by which we determine when the United States is obliged to do something; when doing something or not doing something is an essentially pragmatic choice that could go either way; and when the "something" in question is a something you shouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole? And does your set of criteria tell us when we ought to try to get other parties involved, either as partners or as proxies?  [More]

The Responsibilities of Leadership
 GW: Are there going to be circumstances where the initial reaction of the American public is, "We don't want to touch this with a ten-foot pole," but a discerning political leadership would then have to say, "That's a reasonable first impression, but let me explain to you why it in fact is imperative that we engage in this"? [More]

Endgame in Cuba
 GW: Let's wind up with Cuba. Describe the best endgame and best outcome there, and what the United States could do to facilitate that.  [More]

Looking Toward 1996
GW: If a presidential candidate, preparing his stump speech, asked you for a brief summary statement against the isolationist temptation, what would you suggest that he say?  [More]