Features of the legal and military dimension of US foreign policy

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Features of the legal and military dimension of US foreign policy

Dmytro Lakishyk, Ph. D. (History),

Senior Research Fellow State Institution

«Institute of World History of NAS of Ukraine»

Abstract

The role of the United States in the security system of the global international space is difficult to overestimate. At the same time, the question of the degree to which America's national security strategies are consistent with the requirements of international security is increasingly being questioned. On the one hand, the shift in emphasis to humanitarian values has made it more logical to use modern force to address issues such as the spread of WMD or genocide. On the other hand, the practice of American action in the Middle East and Central Asia has demonstrated the limits of power policy through the use of high technology in the use of traditional structures and strategies. The aim of the article is to analyze the transformational aspect of US security and defense policy, the impact of which becomes more significant than technological innovation.

The study, based on the methods of political analysis, identified the main characteristics of American world leadership, which includes military power, economic competitiveness, moral authority, active participation in international political processes on a global scale and efforts to streamline the international system.

Conclusions. Responding to change must begin with an analysis of the social foundations of threats and, above all, the role of the social factor in modern wars. In case of unsuccessful application, technological power not only does not solve the problem, but also strengthens its social roots. Such a scenario creates a very dangerous situation for the United States, where counteraction can be crystallized or cover conflict sectors that are unusual for Americans. It is important to keep in mind that today's security threats extend to specific citizens and communities more than to the state as a whole. That is why the world community's acceptance of the American vision of international development in areas such as human rights and development is so important to America. While security is based on military capabilities in today's world, its new forms and configurations require the embodiment of types of forceful intervention that are not always consistent with classical doctrines and strategic approaches.

Key words: USA, foreign policy, morality, law, military force.

Дмитро Лакішик, кандидат історичних наук, старший науковий співробітник, Державна установа «Інститут всесвітньої історії НАН України», Київ, Україна

Особливості правового та мілітарного виміру зовнішньої політики США

Анотація

Роль Сполучених Штатів у системі забезпечення безпеки глобального міжнародного простору важко переоцінити. Разом з тим все частіше постає питання щодо ступеню узгодженості стратегій національної безпеки Америки з вимогами міжнародної безпеки. З одного боку, зміщення акценту на гуманітарні цінності зробило логічнішим застосування сучасних силових заходів при вирішенні таких проблем як розповсюдження ЗМЗ чи геноцид. З іншого - практика американських дій на Близькому Сході та у Центральній Азії продемонструвала й межі ведення силової політики шляхом використання високих технологій в рамках використання традиційних структур та стратегій.

Метою статті є аналіз трансформаційного аспекту політики США в сфері безпеки та оборони, вплив якого стає суттєвішим за технологічні інновації.

В результаті дослідження, на основі застосування методів політичного аналізу визначено основні характеристики американського світового лідерства, яке передбачає військову міць, економічну конкурентоспроможність, моральний авторитет, активну участь у міжнародно-політичних процесах в глобальному масштабі і зусилля щодо впорядкування міжнародної системи.

Висновки. Реагування на зміни має починатися від аналізування соціальних підвалин загроз і, передусім, ролі соціального чинника в сучасних війнах. За невдалого застосування технологічна потужність не лише не вирішує проблему, а й посилює її соціальні корені. Подібний сценарій створює для Сполучених Штатів досить небезпечну ситуацію, коли протидія може приховано кристалізуватися чи охоплювати незвичні для американців конфліктні сектори. Важливо враховувати, що сучасні загрози безпеки поширюються на конкретних громадян і спільноти більше, аніж на державу як таку. Саме тому прийняття світовою спільнотою американського бачення міжнародного розвитку в таких сферах, як права людини та розвиток, є дуже важливим для Америки. Поряд із тим, що в сучасному світі безпека базується на мілітарних можливостях, її нові форми та конфігурації потребують утілення типів силового втручання, які не завжди узгоджуються з класичними доктринами та стратегічними підходами.

Ключові слова: США, зовнішня політика, мораль, право, військова сила.

Introduction

Problem statement. The problem of domination, or self-limitation of superpower in the world international-political space, largely affects the moral and legal aspect of world-system management. It is due to the external action of leading actors in the international environment that profound normative changes are structured, which ultimately affect the fate of all participants in the global political discourse. It is clear that when choosing the path of auto-limitation, the actor delegates part of the powers to collective structures or shares this share with other participants in the decision-making process. It is also clear that in such a situation he loses complete control over their implementation and in case of ineffective realization of their own interests has grounds for moral justification of forceful singular action on the world stage.

Analysis of the latest research and publications. This issue and other related issues in political science are considered relevant and are systematically studied by both Western and Russian and Ukrainian experts. The works of Z. Brzezinski, H. Kissenger, G. Ikenberry, R. Haass, F. Zakaria, Ch. Layne, Th. Barnett, S. Rogov, D. Trenin, V. Konishev, O. Sergunin, N. Zagladin, M. Kosolapov, M. Bragin and others. Some researchers focused their attention on American-Russian and American-European relations: W. Drozdiak, C. Kupchan, A. Kuchins, T. Shakleina, V. Batyuk, A. Utkin, O. Prikhodko and others. Among the Ukrainian researchers working in this direction, we can highlight: E. Kaminsky, M. Ruzhkov, I. Pohorska, О. Potekhin, S. Tolstov, S. Fedunyak and others.

The purpose of the article. The United States, like other leaders of the world community, is faced with a choice: to create another global strategy based on its own interests and values, or to present a national strategy as part of a globalization strategy aimed at solving global problems. At the same time, the United States is making a new bid for global leadership in the strategic sphere. That is why the question is which way they will choose.

The main text of the article

For the American establishment, this is focused on maintaining America's status as a world power, threats to national interests in the age of globalization scale to threats on a global planetary scale. Monopoly in the use of force is seen as a kind of moral compromise for taking responsibility for global development. At the same time, it makes sense to emphasize that the ability to win military victories and influence the world economy does not yet guarantee Washington administrative control over the world.

In our opinion, the principles of action in the international arena of any actor are a complex synthesis of utilitarianism and moral and ethical norms that determine the direction in which the actor acts in the international arena. The foreign policy of the United States reflects a complex system of values, in which the argument of power and the argument of morality, political culture and spiritual creativity are closely linked. Following Kant's practical imperative, it is easy to distinguish between price and purpose in the actions of the White House and the Pentagon. According to the classical concept of international relations, a state starts hostilities when it cannot or does not want to resolve difficulties through negotiations. The war, in the words of C. Clausewitz, often quoted by experts, «is an act of violence designed to force the enemy to do our will». Since the current stage of world evolution is not a model of a classic interstate war, the practice of Washington's use of violence in resolving international conflicts requires adequate external and internal legitimacy.

International interventions involve two main types of action: international security measures and actual humanitarian actions. For a long period of time, the latter aimed at restoring civil peace prevailed. However, in a world of interdependence, the moral dilemma of violent intervention is complicated: should force be a means of protecting civilians or used to change the political regime? By what formula should the balance be determined between the mission of global international security and the infliction of harm during military operations? It is important to note that after September 11, 2001, as part of the anti-terrorist war, the United States established new parameters for the protection of national security. If the external argument presented to the world community can be called humanitarian (regime change is a new chance for the free democratic development of Middle Eastern societies), the internal situation was more about justifying the failure to fulfill national security tasks.

The adequacy of the potential of large-scale systemic transformations available in superpowers forms a special vision of its fateful role, supported by the development of relevant political and ideological preferences. In this case, the leadership determinant prevails almost without resistance and without the difficulty of coordinating the work of collective international structures. However, the confusion of the latter in crisis situations further stimulates the moral justification by powerful actors of the right to preventive measures to prevent global systemic destruction, according to the author's own vision of global evolution. It is significantly formed by the general circumstances of the international environment, but the main importance for normalization is the political and legal foundation of the actor and its moral and value slice in particular, i. e. the correspondence between internal and external foundations of foreign policy [8, p. 15-16].

Among the powerful world powers, the United States is trying to demonstrate the greatest degree of correspondence, which leads to an active international political discourse on the natural right of the American establishment to decide the fate of participants in world systemic interaction. The power of the applied dimension of Washington's foreign policy gives us reason to reflect on the leadership nature of power and to seek an explanation for the peculiarities of the sociopolitical organization of Americans. The search for a source of confidence in the great mission of the world liberator can only be compared to the holy messianism of the Christian church. However, global democratization is a process that is undeniably moral from the standpoint of human rights. Along with violent dictation, it becomes one that violates the human right to self-worth of uniqueness.

Since ancient Greece, the classics of the study of the dichotomy of war and peace have emphasized that any military action must have a just foundation and good intentions. The norms presented in the Geneva and Hague Conventions in force since the beginning of the last century have made the approach to international rules of warfare much more humanistic. However, combining security objectives with human rights ethics remains a major dilemma in modern international power policy. America's ideals of human value have not changed significantly since the time of the fundamental «moral innovation» of W. Wilson [20, p. 99-101]. Along with the right of nations to selfdetermination and democracy, human rights have been identified as a top priority in the international political action of the United States. The main dilemma for external political activism is the difficulty of combining security with human rights ethics. The struggles against some authoritarian or dictatorial regimes and the support of others, especially the presidencies of J. Carter and R. Reagan, have become part of modern technology to influence social consciousness [1].

It should be borne in mind that the strengthening of the positions of supporters of active interference in the political development of other states was accompanied by a significant political and value reflection on the neo-conservatives. However, it is impossible to state unequivocally the fact of full observance of the neoconservative tradition in America's global political game. It is obvious that the American historical purpose determined by George W. Bush to rid the world of evil comes from the belief in the representation of universal values in the United States [14, p. 7-9].

Thus, the starting position presupposes rather a democratic component of the existence of a common value foundation of humanity. In the democratic tradition, such recognition requires the acceptance of global diversity as a global value component. The last point makes it necessary to interpret freedom from the standpoint of the self-worth of actors in world politics. The President of the United States also defines the meaning of universal values by the word «freedom», but leaves as a model of its state embodiment the political right to restrict the freedom of others according to the circumstances and using the military power of the American state. Bringing the defensive boundaries beyond one's own political and geographical space testifies to a departure from the classical positions of conservatism, direct intervention in the process of the latest international systemic structuring, and even non-compliance with the platform of neoconservatism. On the other hand, the neoconservative ideological platform serves to strengthen the fascination with its own uniqueness and the process of its planetary assertion by force. Back in June 2001, the President of the United States informed Congress that from now on the Department of Defense should become the most powerful force for the protection of freedom of the world [13, p. 9-17]. Such a role shift in the configuration of state structures in conducting foreign policy has shown not only the globalist style. It testified giving new meaning not only to the military power, but also to the power in general.

In our view, in today's world of interdependence, Wilson's universalism has a better chance of revival than it did during the Republican administration, as issues such as human rights abuses and genocide become a debatable element of any military or humanitarian intervention. The general vision of conducting an effective global foreign policy from the standpoint of the practical feasibility of the latter is successfully represented by the controversy around the two leading approaches. The first approach uses J. Nye's famous concept of «soft power», emphasizing the counter productiveness of forceful foreign policy and the need to reconcile America with the world. The second approach is aimed at finding a new mechanics of maintaining global leadership. According to its author - S. Walt, America's strength advantages should be adequate methods of action in the international arena. The consequence of the inadequacy of intervention in world affairs is the situation of «viscous clinch», which may be appropriate only in the short term [19, p. 71]. S. Walt argues that the erroneous actions of the American elite such as the Iraqi campaign lead to characterize their own state as «the greatest of the immature states of today» and recommends following the «strategy of persuasion» in American supremacy as the best alternative [19, p. 285].

It is important to note that the main idea of the American establishment is the world championship. Here the positions of officials are supported by the arguments of analysts. Proponents of the policy of «charitable hegemony» are trying to prove the justice of America's advancement in the world from two key positions. First, it is about promoting security and protecting the nation from external attacks. This reveals the real strategic value of globalism. Secondly, all violent actions in the global international environment deserve justification given the nobility of the goal. Namely - the democratic reform of political spaces, whose systemic standardization does not allow the average citizen to feel the fullness of freedom. The real enthusiasm of the Republican team's analysts in explaining the uniqueness of the United States to the world comes down to the problematic field of the second argument. At the same time, it is necessary to note the close connection of the latter with the traditional platform of domestic political opponents - the Democrats. Democrats argue that American democratic globalism not only serves the national interests of one state, it plays the role of a moral imperative in building an appropriate system of relations between all nations [18]. However, in turn, the democratic tradition does not teach at all that violent change of society can eradicate evil in a person. Rather, it involves the creation of conditions under which a person has a desire for change.

On the other hand, if the project of creating a universal democratic state is primarily a philosophical concept, in practice it is a management system of international relations. Each nation-state has the right to pursue its own foreign policy, whether by delegating part of its powers to international institutions or by adhering to a unilateral style. The primary task of every society is self-preservation. Promising - self-improvement. The task of foreign policy, first of all, should be to guarantee national security. It is clear that American analysts have no problems with the implication of democratic rights as a separate self-sufficient society in their own space. However, quite often the democratic recognition of such rights by other states is filtered for compliance only with the interests of Washington. Therefore, we are shown a combination of an idealistic concept of domestic political organization and a classic realistic foreign policy concept. As a result, a key question arises: is this really the political, cultural, and organizational foundation of the American state, and is the White House administration really based on normative worldviews inherent in American society in shaping foreign policy?

Adherence to the universalist approach implies simultaneous adherence to the model of understanding human nature, society and politics. However, even if the specifics of national understanding in general correspond to the vision of the prospects of mankind by a significant number of its actors, it is unlikely to provide authority for global world restructuring. It is unlikely that America will maintain the moral purity of its own intentions, moving by the road of overthrowing regimes that are an obstacle to its globalization. It is also clear that US force in Afghanistan or Iraq is more a testament to American national insecurity than to American democratic philanthropy. Theoretically, the use of force to spread democracy in the global space is the latest historical example, close by historical analogy to the Jacobin times of the Great French Revolution. These are the same universal values of freedom and equality, the same desire for great economic freedom and the same vision of themselves as defenders of good. Washington is convinced that the chosen project should become a practice of self-development not only for Americans, but also for the global political world order. The term «democracy» is used to describe the desired world political regime. At the same time, however, the Americans boldly interpret the fact of military power as the greatest force for world freedom. It is important that American society demonstrates a significant degree of support for such ambitions. For example, research by experts on this issue shows that when Americans talk seriously about politics, they mean that the principles of freedom and equality, as well as the rights that come from them, are rational and applicable everywhere [3].

It is also clear that in substantiating the current US power policy to establish a just international order, classical domestic political approaches are not the last. First of all, one of the principles of the founding of the American state works: America has a moral obligation not only to make the world safer for democracy, but also to make it more democratic. The noble task of democratization as a way to improve the lives of all citizens intersects with the not-quite-democratic moral law, which recognizes the legitimacy of expansion and hegemony. The humanistic aspect of the historical state and legal foundation also looks important. According to the Declaration of Independence of the United States, each nation deserves a separate and equal position, because all people are created equal and obliged to respect each other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [7, p. 1-2]. The right to liberty has a collective dimension of exercise through a delegation of government, regardless of the governments of other nations. Moreover, the founding fathers argued that the nature of law obliges a nation to respect the rights of other nations. For example, Madison's «Federalist» states that political relations between nations should be moral relations based on respect for human rights [16, p. 5-7]. That is, it is a question of observance of natural law from the standpoint of humanism, and not of imitation of the conceptual vision of the descendants of Thucydides. Natural law itself enshrines a special social agreement, which empowers the national government to address the issues of security, freedom and well-being of citizens. It is not yet the government's right to sacrifice its citizens for the sake of citizens of other nations. There is no natural obligation for one nation to solve the problems of another. Another foreign policy choice significantly contradicts the essence of the social agreement. This idea is supported by the position of one of the founders of US foreign policy - J. Adams. According to this prominent figure, America is not looking for «monsters of destruction». She is a champion and a winner only of herself [12, p. 1-2]. Therefore, the views of the founders of the American political system suggest thinking about a humanistic moral and legal foundation, closest to the famous teachings of Ch. Montesquieu. Not only does the refrain of offensive instructions not sound here, but also the fundamental feature of the approach to public administration, which consists in the distribution of power on the principle of non-domination, is fixed. Defensive moral and legal intention should lead to the choice of a non-imperial concept of foreign policy. On the other hand, the classics are talking about a model of permanent alliances, where America is guaranteed a share of world power, rather than isolationism.

At the same time, it is clear that the intensity of modern international life contributes to at least a partial abandonment of classical sustainable models, because world actors need to retain some freedom of action in shifting the defense boundaries of national interests into the space of global interactions. The White House is trying to defend its right to choose in matters of war and peace in a situation where national security becomes the main national interest. Globalization processes significantly contribute to the strengthening of the positions of supporters of American progressivism - the modern version of liberalism. This gives grounds to determine the influence of another political tradition on the foreign policy of the United States. Namely - a historical reflection on the presidency of F. Roosevelt. It was then that the Americans idealized a version of French imperial expansionism. It was believed that due to the expansion of civilized power in the world, law and order would prevail. Consideration of the legal aspect of international relations is inherent in the democratic school of the Wilsonites [15, p. 81]. However, the US administration pays little attention to the possibility of using civil national law and its international counterparts, while in the realms of power reforms, military law is preferred.

In our opinion, the fact of a comprehensive historical and conceptual foundation of US foreign policy in its moral and legal aspect can be traced to the activities of any White House administration. American hegemony is considered a good that meets both the national interests of the leader of the world community and the national interests of states that are liberated from the undemocratic political regime. Thus, according to the well- known expert on this issue M. Boot, modern neoconservatives can be characterized as «hard Wilsonians» [4, p. 29]. However, it must be understood that the use of the conceptual achievements of idealists ends when it comes to returning Americans to close cooperation with international institutions, i. e. the need to decide on the division of powers and freedom in favor of war or peace in a unilateral way. At the same time, there is a clear tendency to deny the position of any policy that serves only the interests of America, is morally questionable. However, if the foreign policy aimed at protecting the life and freedom of one's own state is a moral matter, then in the context of universal world charity it is doubtful. Acting in the international arena in its own interests, the superpower builds and implements a strategy to protect its own existence in accordance with the role status. External expansions such as Iraq are more indicative of the task of increasing control over the space of an alternative socio-political foundation than of raising the level of real democracy. The overly loyal attitude of the White House leadership to states with authoritarian regimes or the support of one state and criticism of another on the same issue, such as the attitude to the nuclear developments of Israel and India, provide an opportunity to see specific national interests behind the conceptual shell of global democratization. Therefore, it is very difficult to interpret all the foreign policy actions of the United States as a concern for the lives of other peoples on the basis of high moral imperatives. Although American - it is possible. Practical superiority is a trait of a strong actor rather than a trait of high moral purpose. Therefore, the international community is again faced with the fundamental dilemma of America's moral and legal leadership and the legitimation of its democratic nature.

First of all, it is a contradiction between the universal principle that all people are equal, including from the standpoint of socio-political organization, and the principle that America is considered a supranational power. In this situation, countries that oppose the spread of American influence are very often treated in Washington as carriers of ambitions that threaten human rights and the national security of the United States. At the same time, not all American society adheres to the view that America has a moral right to destroy the traditions of individual peoples, changing their historical progress. Not all Americans like to abandon anti-imperial political traditions. Thus, in contrast to the liberal, the determinant of the conservative tradition creates the danger of a double risk of moral and legal delegitimization of forceful foreign policy actionism outside and inside the American state.

It is clear that the excessive degree of United States interference in the global political matrix leaves no other choice for the continuation of global American progress. It is important to note that America's fundamental differences with the world community are not in the latter's misunderstanding of political democratic governance as positive, but in opposition to the normative American vision of the common good only from its own national interests and the American leadership's refusal to serve a special moral status nature. The main wish of both allies and opponents of American globalism is not to abandon the United States from active action in the areas of global security and political and systemic stabilization, but to cultivate peaceful activities in accordance with the purpose of man [17; 6; 10; 5]. Thus, the moral foundations of Washington's foreign policy must be much more correlated with the morality of the American tradition itself, in which all people are equal by nature and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, variations in the methods of international political management are of paramount importance, primarily in measuring interaction with other actors and international institutions. It becomes important to define common positions on a wide range of values. Yes, it is possible to be allies on environmental issues and at the same time differ in views on counter-terrorism programs. Reflection on the polyarchic functioning of the modern international system, the challenges of destabilization gives the actors of international political interaction new points of contact to curb mutual conflict, especially economic. At the same time, in states of polyarchic instability and with confidence in the locality of the scale of intervention by powerful political actors, the tendency to see military force as one of the instruments of foreign policy increases. An example of such a reaction was the concept of «transformation of war» presented by D. Rumsfeld in his time [9, p. 9-34]. According to him, the danger of creating a hostile environment requires America to be ready to protect not only the main but also the secondary interests of America. An important component of the concept is the fullest use of technical progress. The Pentagon's argument is systematized as follows: the main focus in modern combat is on the use of high-precision weapons, while the battlefield is becoming increasingly transparent; it becomes necessary to ensure high accuracy of hits and high efficiency of data collection on remote objects and the use of unmanned vehicles; collection of complete information and providing access to it in real time for the purpose of interaction of different types of troops; formation of an arsenal of means that will allow to conduct hostilities independently of the help of allies. In situations of «modular isolation», i. e. unilateral actions based on long-range aircraft and military transport, the advantage of the military stage of the operation is reflected. The task of reducing civilian casualties in this way inspires the Pentagon to pursue more ambitious programs - the development of non-lethal weapons. At the same time, it cannot be stated unequivocally that such attempts significantly alleviate the moral dilemma. Practical testing reveals not only the possibility of practical military errors, but also the dysfunction of process management in the initial stages of stabilization and reconstruction of the intervention space, including lack of political legitimacy, difficulty in creating national police forces and implementation of recovery programs.

At the same time, the philosophy of human rights is first of all in the desire of the individual to express oneself most widely through the development of cultural and legal institutions. This aspect of humanitarian action should reflect such important provisions as the fight against discrimination against religions, freedom of choice of models of public and social governance [6, p. 13-28]. The principle of overcoming differences peacefully is a fundamental foreign policy principle of the United States' allies, the modern Europeans, important to them both in terms of continuing European political and cultural integration itself and in terms of relations with developing countries. The main idea is that all the principles underlying political action should be based on respect for the individual, reflecting cosmopolitan orientations that are not always consistent with Washington's state realism.

Washington is well aware that global development is not possible without the application of international law, as is the consideration by world community leaders of new threats and destructive social phenomena that require much more managerial consensus than America's unilateral action. In the context of finding a complex balance between «hard» and «soft» power, military-humanitarian cooperation has become a special dimension of modern US foreign policy. Relations between the military and NGOs have changed dramatically, especially in the context of their interaction as participants in international crisis management. Despite the increase in the number of public organizations working in crisis zones, the will of the nation-state in the face of its army continues to dominate. The US government also rightly emphasizes that humanitarian aid provides an opportunity to show the positive attitude of the American people to the rest of the world, especially to Muslim nations. The presence of the armed forces should be accompanied by the deployment of humanitarian volunteers. This mobilizes the representation of America as a powerful nation and helps to gain the necessary legitimacy in the Western environment in the process of justifying military intervention. In addition, the United States, as a donor of humanitarian aid programs, gains some control over international funds that finance humanitarian agency projects in areas of high strategic importance (such as Afghanistan or Iraq). And, thanks to a strong presence in crisis areas, the US military has an advantage in decision-making within international coalitions. This is most evident when the Allies are more concerned with the humanitarian component of the mission and the Americans with the military one. Here the development of national influence also becomes part of the mission. In view of the fact that the American humanitarian model emphasizes the effectiveness of technical assistance and its adequacy to political goals, the convergence of the military and humanitarian dimensions within the American mission itself remains a constant problem.

The growing integration of military and humanitarian interests in political-strategic coordination has strengthened the synergy of the Pentagon's presence as the Agency for International Development and military civilian specialists in crisis management missions. The war on terror has changed not only the planning and implementation of operations, but also the concept of the US military and the role of civic organizations. The structural network of non-governmental actors is increasingly used by private military organizations. Private agencies offer military services both within the framework of actions accompanied by a parliamentary resolution and those run by secret intelligence services. Here, a fundamentally new location modality and high logistical support maximizes flexibility and the ability to respond quickly to bypass traditional bureaucratic and administrative control procedures.

It should be noted that the Pentagon during this period resorted to the introduction of asymmetric strategies through the production of controlled chaos in the conservation of control. Thanks to the information media, a complex dynamics of the military rhythm is being created and civilian participants are being introduced into the space of intervention. It is the mastery of time of action through the integration of space-time aspects that makes it possible to gain control over the public environment and wage a network war. Thus, humanitarian missions may end up in the military ones. The American neoliberal approach is based on a militarized definition of security, which makes it impossible to overcome such a key functional barrier as interference in the space of other states - the different temporality of short-term crisis management and long-term stabilization. The military-humanitarian symbiosis did not become absolute in practice, as evidenced by the examples of the opposition of the American humanitarian GARE to the dominance of the military command, the closure of programs and the departure of the MSF mission from Afghanistan [17, p. 9-12].

This contradiction reflects a fundamental feature of the US foreign policy. On the one hand, the links between the two dimensions are well institutionalized at all levels of intervention: both when it comes to political strategic coordination between ministries under the direct leadership of the National Security Council, and on-the-spot coordination between National Development Agency teams, civilian military specialists and humanitarian organizations. On the other hand, the difficulties of interaction between NGO representatives and the military have not been overcome. We can talk about the intensity of work in joint groups, between departments and, above all, the negative position of servicemen, who emphasize that they arrive at the destination to fight, not to engage in humanitarian reconstruction, that the civilian mission of the army destroys its military identity and reduces the effectiveness of the army [17, p. 19-24].

An important factor in the relationship between military command and foreign policy managers is civilian control over the solution of the leading dichotomy of international relations - war and peace. At the same time, the discourse in military circles often looks more balanced than the position of political leaders. Studies show that this state of affairs has been a feature since the Vietnam War, when the decision to intervene belonged to the civilian leadership. At the present historical stage, there are two positions presented in the approaches of S. Huntington and E. Cohen. The first, presented in the monograph «The Soldier and the State», contains a proposal to balance competencies through a system of objective control. The second provides for greater autonomy of the military in the tactical and operational dimensions. According to the researcher, this approach resulted in better political decisions and balanced relations between the military and civilian leadership of the country [10, p. 2-3]. Opposing S. Huntington's approach was the concept of E. Cohen, presented under the name “Supreme Command”. In his main thesis, he contained the following statement: military success requires the intervention of civilian leadership at three levels: strategic, tactical, and operational. De facto, it was proposed to provoke the military to dialogue under different asymmetric powers in order to overcome their resistance [5, p. 208-223]. The results of Rumsfeld's work as Secretary of Defense, and especially of the Iraqi campaign, have been rightly criticized for discrediting equal relations and civilian control over military security and defense. Moreover, the difficulties that Americans faced in the non-American space only slowed down practical transformations in relations with the military. As a result, Rumsfeld's successor, R. Gates, was forced to develop a more flexible course of action.

The team's global counterterrorism program has identified another most dangerous aspect in measuring the functionality of selected conceptual approaches. The implementation of the concept of preventive war helped to separate Americans from the Muslim world. The famous French researcher of this issue G. Andreani defined the essence of the problem as follows: «Risky approach to the use of force, the difference between the goals attributed to operations, with the goals after the conflict, which may become unrealistic» [2, p. 196-197]. The international legitimacy of force is an intertwining of the right to war, the right to wars and the return to peace. The total cost of intervention or non-intervention requires clearer forecasts by intelligence agencies, otherwise the liberator risks being re-identified. While the affluent North speaks of the international struggle for human rights as a threat to its own sovereign development, the South very often sees in coalitions of interest an action aimed at interfering in the sovereignty of other states.

In the protection of national interests and national security, the United States has globalized faster than other nations. The discrepancy between morality and pragmatism in the actions of the United States reflected prejudice against a number of international treaties that should strengthen the protection of human rights: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal, and the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines. The partners' criticisms of disrespect for international humanitarian law and a neutral humanitarian space, the excessive role of the military and the humanities in the post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction process, have also become more frequent. Military activity has recently stimulated a discourse on the militarization of the American model of civic-military integration in humanitarian missions. In 2001, C. Powell declared that American humanitarian organizations were the vector of the battle against terrorism. The vector of regulatory influence is a pillar of the global security strategy. The de facto use of the potential of liberal and commercial structures in humanitarian and development assistance has been at the service of Washington's strategic interests. The practical goals of this approach are clear - it is to strengthen interagency coordination, especially between the State Department, the Pentagon and the International Development Agency. In search of operational effectiveness, Americans are trying to achieve a comprehensive spatial-time integration of interventions. Today we are talking not only about the process of planning and organization (unity of command, the correlation between psychological and information operations), but also about the process of rationalization.

The main feature of the Biden administration's foreign policy concept is that it, like the new US president's foreign policy as a whole, is based on efforts to adhere to the ideological and moral principles of democracy, liberalism, and reliance on alliances and allies. For the new administration, the fight against terrorist threats and the existing network of terrorist organizations in the region remains one of the main policy goals in the Middle East. The peculiarities in the implementation of this direction are, firstly, that the emphasis is placed primarily on the collective actions of the United States and its allies and partners in the region. As stated in the «Interim National Security Strategic Guidance», «recent events have shown very clearly that many of the greatest threats we have faced are due to ignoring borders or dividing walls, that is why they need to oppose collective action» [11, p. 7]. Second, the United States has recognized the need to reduce the presence of its armed forces in the Middle East to the level necessary to destroy the international terrorist network and counter Iranian aggression [11, p. 15].

legal military foreign policy

Conclusions

Solving the classical dichotomy of war and peace remains one of the most difficult in the theory and practice of modern international life. The international community's overcoming of challenges such as the terrorist threat or international conflicts, i.e. phenomena of a complex social nature, requires an adequate and effective response from the world's leading states.

The practical dimension of interaction reveals differences in approaches and strategies of action between different actors. At the same time, the imperative of protection does not exclude the moral imperative, while the competition of national interests does not exclude the search for compromises to find common ground primarily in the dimensions of human rights protection and the use of legal mechanisms.

The impact of globalization on the world social space allows us to note: morality in the world of international relations remains among the important imperatives of foreign policy, but also becomes an important result of international systemic transformation, which strengthens the role functionality of non-military levers - economy, finance, technology, political management and social engineering.

List of sources and literature

1. Ambrose S., Brinkley D. Rise to globalism: America Foreign Policy since 1938 / S. Ambrose, D. Brinkley. - N.Y.: Longman, 1998. - 480 p.

2. Andreani G. Henry Kissinger. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21^st Century / G. Andreani // Politique etrangere. - 2003. - № 1. - P. 195-197.

3. Bloom A. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students / A. Bloom. - N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1988. - 400 p.

4. Boot M. Doctrine of the «Big Enchilada» / M. Boot // The Washington Post. - 2002. - October 14. - P. 29.

5. Cohen E. Supreme Command: Soldiers, States and Leadership in Wartime / E. Cohen. - N.Y.: Anchor, 2003. - 320 p.

6. Colonomos A. La morale dans les relations internationales / A. Colonomos. - P.: Odile Jacob, 2005. - 360 p.

7. The Declaration of Independence. [Electronic Resource] // Massachusetts Historical Society. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/a2iZ.

8. Eberwein W.-D. Le Paradox Humanitaire? Normes et Pratiques / W. -D. Eberwein // Culture & Conflits. - 2005. - № 60. - P. 15-37.

9. Hoop Scheffer de A. L'apres-guerre en Irak: le role des militaires au creur du paradoxe de la strategie americaine du «shaping» // A. de Hoop Scheffer // Les Champs de Mars. - 2005. - № 17. - P. 9-35.

10. Huntington S. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relation /

S. Huntington. - Cambridge: Belknap Press / Harvard University Press, 1981. - 560 p.

11.Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. March 2021. [Electronic Resource] // The White House Washington. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/amx6.

12. John Quincy Adams' July 4 Speech. [Electronic Resource] // Economic Thinking. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/9MRs.

13. Kagan R., Kristol W. National Interest and Global Responsibility // Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy/ Ed. by R. Kagan, W. Kristol. - San-Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000. - P. 3-24.

14. Lacorne D. George W. Bush, un «conservateur a visage humain» / D. Lacorne // Critique Internationale. - 2000. - №6. - P. 6-11.

15. Litwak R.S. The Imperial Republic after 9/11 / R.S. Litwak // The Wilson Quarterly. - 2002. - Summer. - Vol. 26. - №3. - P. 76-82.

16. Madison J. The Federalist Papers: No. 44. [Electronic Resource] J. Madison // Lillian Goldman Law Library. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/9INE.

17. Makki S. Militarisation de l'humanitaire? Le modele americain de l'integration civilo-militaire, ses enjeux et ses limites [Electronic Resource] / S. Makki // «Les humanitaires dans la guerre: heros ou victimes?». Centre international de Presse, Residence Palace, Bruxelles, 17 novembre 2004. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/9umi.

18. Krauthammer Ch. Democratic Realism. [Electronic Resource] / Ch. Krauthammer // American Enterprise Institute. - 2004. - February 4. - Mode to Access: https://goo.su/9RDW.

19. Walt S. Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy / S. Walt. - N.Y.: W.W. Norton Company, 2006. - 322 p.

20. Vaisse J. Les Etats-Unis sans Wilson L'internationalisme americain apres la guerre froide / J. Vaisse // Critique internationale. - 1999. - № 3. - P. 99-20.

References

1. Ambrose, S. & Brinkley, D. (1998). Rise to globalism: America Foreign Policy since 1938. N.Y.: Longman. [In English].

2. Andreani, G. (2003). Henry Kissinger. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21^st Century. Politique etrangere, 1, 195-197. [In French].

3. Bloom, A. (1988). The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. [In English].

4. Boot, M. (2002, October 14). Doctrine of the «Big Enchilada». The Washington Post, 29. [In English].

5. Cohen, E. (2003). Supreme Command: Soldiers, States and Leadership in Wartime. N.Y.: Anchor. [In English].

6. Colonomos, A. (2005). La morale dans les relations internationales. P.: Odile Jacob. [In French].

7. The Declaration of Independence. Massachusetts Historical Society. - Mode to Access:

https://goo.su/a2iZ. [In English].

8. Eberwein, W.-D. (2005). Le Paradox Humanitaire? Normes et Pratiques. Culture & Conflits, 60, 1537. [In French].

9. Hoop Scheffer, de A. (2005). L'apres-guerre en Irak: le role des militaires au cwur du paradoxe de la strategie americaine du «shaping». Les Champs de Mars, 17, 9-35. [In French].

10. Huntington, S. (1981). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relation. Cambridge: Belknap Press / Harvard University Press. [In English].

11. Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. March 2021. The White House Washington. https://goo.su/amx6. [In English].

12. John Quincy Adams' July 4 Speech. Economic Thinking. https://goo.su/9MRs. [In English].

13. Kagan, R. & Kristol, W. (2000). National Interest and Global Responsibility. In: R. Kagan & W. Kristol (Eds.). Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, 3-24. [In English].