Henry R Nau’s article Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy, written in 2007, examines the tendency of foreign policy analysts to generalize, simplify, and vilify geopolitical opposition. Conversely, Nau argues that foreign policy is not a battle between good and evil; but “matters of perspective and judgment,” (Nau, H., p. 28). Rather than correlating this contention to a simplified response—man’s propensity for evil—Nau believes that variances in worldview provides a more comprehensive expository, (Nau, H., p. 25). These variances in worldviews are a combination of facts, both natural and social, (Nau, H., p. 26). Thus, “all leaders, analysts, and citizens simplify when they debate foreign affairs. And therein lies our problem,” (Nau, H., p. 27).
Plausibility
Nau’s theory stands plausible in contemporary geopolity. Nationally, states pose a self-prioritized initiative; every country has its own aspirations and incentives for engaging in international relations. While every nation has its own tradition and worldview, Nau believes that with clearer international analytics and a transparent understanding of cultural differences, a global consensus of peace can be achieved. Nau cites that in essence, all conflicting judgments implement their own logic, therefore each are sound in their own application, (Nau, H., p. 42). Therefore, Nau’s theory includes for civil understanding between variances in partisanship, and is thus conducive with international diplomacy, (Nau, H., p. 42). Nau charges “serious analysts” with benevolent intentions, yet the furtherance of information disparities; specifically, (1) the inability to attain all necessary facts on any particular international issue; and (2) the hierarchy of the facts that any state is able to perceive, (Nau, H., p. 39). While foreign policy analysts must observe their own national interests, there must be a continuous awareness of the perceptions formed from other nations. Morgenthau wrote “[t]he essence of international politics is identical with its domestic counterpart,” (Baldwin, D.; Milner, H., 159).
Foreign policy analyst Helen Milner notes, “[w]hile anarchy is an important condition of world politics, it is not the only one,” citing the dangers of “an exclusive focus on anarchy” as “overly reductionist,” (Baldwin, D.; Milner, H, p. 167). Worse, adds Milner, “[t]here is no single hierarchy of authority, as in some ideal military organization . . . [a]uthority is not highly concentrated; it is diffused,” (Baldwin, D.; Milner, H., p 155).
Global image remains an element of persuasion on the global stage of anarchy among nations. Nau cites that internationally there remains a consistent factor among nations, that “[p]eople of good faith differ in their judgments they make about the principle causes of world events,” (Nau, H., p. 39). Henry Nau’s geopolitical theory recognizes other salient forces beyond anarchism and the necessity of survival of the state.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 15, of the defects concerning the Confederation. In this, Hamilton presupposed the international system as anarchic; writing that, “there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy,” (Hamilton, A., p. 68).
Further Nau cites David Brooks’ belief, that “Western policy is drifting toward the option . . . that is containment” (Nau, H.,p. 41). Nau cites George F. Kennan, who “formulated the policy of ‘containment,’ the basic United States strategy for fighting the cold war (1947–1989) with the Soviet Union,” (History.State).
Conclusively, Nau attests that “intelligence agencies, like decisionmakers, have to make judgments because the facts alone do not decide,” (Nau,H., p. 36). Helen Milner contends that these decisonmakers are split between domestic and international relations; “[d]omestically, authority, administration, and law prevail; internationally, it is power, struggle, and accommodation,” (Baldwin, D.; Milner, H p. 159). But conflict does not facilitate sustainability. Kenneth Waltz wrote that “[w]ar may achieve a redistribution of resources, but labor, not war, creates wealth,” (Waltz, K. p. 224).
Critique
Nau’s theory is based on equivocation; lacking a solution. Henry R. Nau relies on the avoidance of truth, declaring there to be no single universal objective truth. Nau dances between realist and liberalist framework, opting for a conglomerative worldview. Nau equivocates politics with natural science, writing “[e]ven natural scientists demur from declaring they have discovered truth,” (Nau, H., p. 40).
Nau offers an admission of his own lack of moral doctrine, writing “[i]f we have that much trouble knowing the way the world works, whose parts do not have a will of their own, shouldn’t we be more modest about what we can know about the social world of international politics?” (Nau, H., p. 40). Nau’s asseveration displays the degradation of aptitude in contemporary foreign policy analyst establishments. Under this framework, a lack of comprehensive data renders any effort to analyze foreign affairs as insignificant.
Rather than depict a specific explanation for foreign affairs and international relations, Nao’s theory relies on the pretext of knowing nothing while equally accepting a variance of perceptions. Conversely, realism holds a distinct hierarchy of needs. Robert O. Keohane wrote that, “[f]or if neorealism’s first commitment is statism, its second commitment is to a utilitarian perspective on action, social order, and institutional change,” (Keohane, R., p. 273). Keohane adds that “[w]hat Morganthau and many other realists have in common is a belief that ethical and political behavior will fail unless it takes into account the actual practice of states and the teachings of sound theory,” (Keohane, R., p. 320).
Nau provides an overview of both competing foreign policy frameworks, ultimately concluding that all worldviews are correct. But some worldviews call for the total elimination of political opposition, posing a danger to its citizens and surrounding nations. King Solomon scribed accordingly that “[w]hen there is moral rot within a nation, its government topples easily. But wise and knowledgeable leaders bring stability,” (Proverbs 28:2; NLT). Nau’s theory advocates for harmful international theory, stating “opponents on an issue are not stupid or evil. They speak from a different perspective, and we can listen carefully to . . . how and where they emphasize and evaluate facts differently than we do,” (Nau, H., p. 41).
The acceptance of all worldviews places individual morality and personal connection to God, below the collective. All worldviews are not equal; some are detrimental to national identity and tradition, while others pose a threat to national security. Scripture reminds us “[b]lessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!,” (Psalms 33:12; ESV). Nau’s sound recognition of the inherent morality of man—that “each of us as a moral human being, has to make a choice,”—believes the falsity that “all of us together can benefit from the differences,” (Nau, H., p. 42). Global union presupposes the elimination of the minority that is cultural and religious opposition. Secondly, global union presupposes that religion will be united. Third, global union suggests that global rule must be surveyed and enforced. This deposes the national supremacy of every nation, placing it beneath a SuperLeviathan.
Nau continues in his advocation for ubiquitous passivity, and the deconstruction of national identity, writing “one can even argue they are all necessary if we are going to see the world in as many ways as possible,” incorrectly concluding that “because we cannot see it as it actually is,” (Nau, H., p. 42).
Further, Nau imposes a false dichotomy, fallaciously presupposing that no other explanations exist for the variation in foreign policy. Nau erroneously believes that “the world is becoming smaller through the interdependence of communications (diplomacy), transportation (trade), professional societies (epistemic communities), urbanization and industrialization (bureaucracies), common problem solving (law), and environmental protection (planet earth),” (Nau, H., p. 29).
While Nau’s position observes many different structures of society; it negates individual self-interest. As Nau contends, “the habit of cooperation slowly diminishes the significance of power and ideological differences,” (Nau, H., p. 29).
Critically, Nau’s pragmatic framework does not have a distinct position. Author Charles Jones warns that pragmatists “cannot justify the projection of theory on the world through hypothesis any better than empiricists can,” (Buzan, B; Jones, C; Little, R., p. 185). Rather than holding an empirical position, Nau pragmatically writes, “[t]hese differing judgments are all logical and can be understood without disparaging our political opponents,” (Nau, H., p. 29). Opposing judgments logically cannot both be rationally sound. Logician Stepehen Rice notes that “[e]xclusive disjunctions require that only one disjunct or the other, but not both, be true,” (Rice, S., p. 214). International relations professor Charles Jones notes “[r]ationality is founded on certain basic logical rules,” (Buzan, B; Jones, C; Little, R., p. 184). There must be some moral objective truth to balance the actions of right and wrong. Whilst the international system traditionally bears an anarchic approach; contemporary theorists now attribute liberalism to be exclusively imperative to the prosperity of other nations. This causes nations to form globalist factions, allowing unelected global leaders to coerce participating member states to follow a partisan narrative, collectively invoking global hegemony over geopolitical opposition.
Lastly, Henry R. Nau inserts his own worldview, asserting that “[w]e can thank the people we disagree with because they remind us that none of us has a corner on the true nature of the world we inhabit, especially the world of foreign affairs,” (Nau, H., p. 42). But Nau’s geopolitical existentialism lacks foundational objectivity. Conversely, the Physician Luke wrote that, “[f]rom one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands,” (Acts 17:26; NIV). Clearly, man was endowed with an inheritance for God’s earth; contingent on the proper stewardship of resources, the furtherance of righteousness, and the preservation of natural order.
Conclusion
Contrary to Nao’s theory, foreign malevolence must be precluded through deterrence—increasing domestic defense and resource independency. Interdependence weakens national tradition, state sovereignty, and cultural independence. Every nation must steward their resources accordingly, or participate in diplomacy on a basis of their own national advantages; rather than blind submission of national reserves conditional to a collective membership. Yet, militarized global institutions like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) persist, following the conclusion of the Cold War. Converse to Nao’s theory, pluralist collectives impose singular narratives and force unilateral action on any nation that opposes its global agenda. Nao’s theory, if universally applied, would follow a ‘majority rules’ format; applying the detriment of a pure democracy omnipotently across all nations. Thus, Nao’s international relations are contingent on a mutual understanding in the difference of perceptions, and the omission of true right and wrong. The absence of good versus evil, right and wrong, and overall polarization; proves Nao’s theory of perception. Yet the invocation of real world forces question the validity and proficiency of these acclaimed perceptions.
Bibliography
Baldwin, D.A. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. Columbia University Press: New York.
Buzan, B.; Jones, C.; Little, R. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. Columbia University Press: New York.
CVCE. (Accessed on March 30th, 2025). ‘The Sources of Soviet Conduct’ from Foreign Affairs (July 1947) – CVCE Website. https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/the_sources_of_soviet_conduct_from_foreign_affairs_july_1947-en-a0f03730-dde8-4f06-a6ed-d740770dc423.html
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John. The Federalist: The Gideon Edition . Liberty Fund, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Keohane, R.O. (1986). Neorealism and its Critics. Columbia University Press: New York.
History.State. (Accessed on March 30th, 2025). Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations – Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/kennan
Nau, H.R. (2007). Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy. Policy Review, 25-42. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/why-we-fight-over-foreign-policy/docview/216443054/se-2
NIV. Acts 17:26
NLT. Proverbs 28:2
Rice, S.M. (2017). The Force of Logic: Using Formal Logic as a Tool in the Craft of Legal Argument (NITA). Wolters Kluwer.
Jordan Muhsin 