Should Powerful States Look After the Well-Being of Less Powerful States?

 "Should" is an interesting question, because it discards reality and enables the respondent to reorder the world according to a flight of fancy. In this case, it is also an exceedingly easy question to answer: the exclusive aim of all states, weak and strong, should be to please me. As I reside in the US, in most cases powerful states should not look after less powerful. Unfortunately for me, this reordering of the world will probably never occur. States are controlled by people, and people act in attempts to fulfill their own physical and emotional needs rather than mine. This is inevitable. The more important is question is whether, given human nature, it is rational for the population of a powerful state to support policies that look after the well-being of less powerful states. It often is, insofar as global stability, prosperity, and liberalization can fulfill the needs of the populace.

Foreign policy should not be guided by altruism, by compassion, or by concerns for "right" and "wrong". There are no widely accepted and algorithmic definitions of "good" or "evil", nor is there an empirical or rational basis for behaving in accordance with those standards. An effective foreign policy must be protected from the erratic and sometimes errant influences of unjustifiable instinct.

Self-interest should be the guiding principle of policy, but self-interest does not mean the myopic pursuit of pleasure and personal power. Personal wealth and power tend to have diminishing marginal returns; in other words, with each additional unit the additional benefit decreases. To make an example of a recurring World Politics theme, the difference between a hole in the ground and a $300 toilet is far greater than the difference between a $300 toilet and a $600 toilet. In fact, I may derive more benefit from buying a $300 toilet for myself and another one for my neighbor. Not only do I reduce my risk of catching an illness due to poor sanitation and improve the environment in which I live, I also receive a measure of personal satisfaction, decrease the chance that my neighbor will steal from me, and gain standing in my community. “No man is an island unto himself”, as John Donne duly noted.

The same principle functions on a global scale. More so than ever, the world does not end at the border checkpoint. Development generally benefit nearly the entire international community: potential product markets are larger, natural resources are cheaper and more easily accessible, human talent pools are larger, wars and international crimes are rarer, and epidemics are fewer and easier to contain; malaria nets are far cheaper than missiles. Furthermore, by advocating policies that strengthen the international community, citizens may also create an implicit check on the power of their own government. And when the interests of a state and its citizens do diverge from those of the international community, it always helps to be able to call in a few favors.