In Defense of Altruism in Foreign Policy

The fallout from the Trump administration’s disastrous foreign policy venture in Europe is still playing out. As always, there are so many things to write about and highlight. But I want to take a bit of a step back and look at the broader picture. Specifically, I want to discuss the dominant approach to Trump’s foreign policy (as well as his politics in general), transactional politics. Viewing everything through a transactional lens hurts American interests, which would be better served through a more altruistic approach.

The tweet above is a perfect example of this transactional approach. There is a notion that you only help other countries, or even have a relationship with them, if they give you something in return. There is a disdain for any notion of principles, higher values, or acting in good faith. The use of “sob story”, “best friend”, and the fear of being “taken advantage of” are all meant to indicate a more “realistic” foreign policy and a desire to not appear “weak”. Being nice might work in church, but this is the real world, and we have to get what is ours.

It is not just Vance. I mentioned in the last post Hegseth’s idea of not allowing “Uncle Sam” to be “Uncle Sucker”. Trump’s thought is where all this stems. He is obsessed with the U.S. being taken advantage of, which is why he opposes just about any free trade agreement and has threatened to leave security alliances, such as NATO and the U.S. agreements with Korea and Japan.

This mindset views the world as a zero-sum game. If one person wins, the other person loses. Trump is obsessed with not losing, and so if the world really is zero-sum, then he does not want to be the loser. The problem is the world is not often zero-sum. In most cases there are win-win scenarios, which is the case with trade and security alliances. Everyone gets something out of the arrangement and everyone is better off.

All of this makes me think of game theory, which is an analytical approach developed by economists and political scientists. The basic assumption is that humans are rational actors, meaning they take actions they believe provide them with the best chance of achieving their goals. Humans do not make these decisions in a vacuum however, they make them with expectations of how others, who are also rational actors, will act. Game theory can be used to explain and predict actions. If we know the desired objective and the possible actions to achieve that outcome, we can explain and possibly predict what action will be taken.

It is also used to highlight challenges in international relations. The most famous and simple game is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The scenario is that the police take two people into custody they suspect of committing a crime. They do not have enough evidence to convict them of this larger crime but only a smaller one (like trespassing). They put the prisoners in two separate rooms for questioning and tell them each that if they confess, they will get a lesser sentence. They say that the other prisoner is confessing and trying to pin the whole thing on you. If you don’t confess, you will take the full brunt of the sentence, while the other prisoner will get off with no penalty. So, you might as well confess otherwise you will be taken advantage of by the other prisoner.

The structure of the game is designed so that a rational actor, who is attempting to spend the least amount of time in prison, will confess. In other words, rat out the fellow prisoner. Mathematically, that is the only option that makes sense. If you stay silent while the other person confesses, you get the maximum prison sentence, which is known as the “sucker’s payoff”. Nobody wants to be the sucker.

The game is often used to explain why you do not see cooperation in international relations. You can’t trust other countries. You don’t want to cooperate, while the other country does not cooperate and takes advantage of you. The language by Trump, Vance, and Hegseth reflects this viewpoint well, even if they’ve never heard of the prisoner’s dilemma.

There are some problems with the logic of the prisoner’s dilemma though. First, it has strict assumptions that are not reflective of the real world. Primarily, it assumes the prisoners cannot communicate and that the game is only played once. In actual foreign relations, countries communicate with each other and “play the game” repeatedly. This is especially true for allies. The U.S. is in constant communication and has a long history of interacting with Canada and its European allies. There is a history of cooperation and shared values that result in flipping the prisoner’s dilemma from non-cooperation to cooperation.

Let’s go back to the prisoner’s dilemma for a second. What if our prisoners are part of a gang that has norms against “snitching”. The prisoners are not simply acting out of simple self-interest but are shaped and formed by the values of the organization and the interaction among the members. They know that the other person believes in this value and will not confess. They will both stay silent (which is cooperation in this game) and achieve the best outcome (less jail time). This better describes the relationship between the U.S. and Canada.

Multiple studies have proven that altruism can be a winning strategy in most game theory games, including the prisoner’s dilemma if it is played repeatedly. If you continue to cooperate, the other player will also eventually cooperate. Cooperation leads to the best outcomes, whereas non-cooperation leads to smaller benefits. It turns out that being nice is the best way to achieve your desired outcomes, in addition to being the right thing to do.

It is not just academic experiments that prove altruistic, win-win approaches are successful. The post-WWII record of American foreign policy prove it as well. I know it is glossing over a lot to describe U.S. foreign policy as altruistic, but it has focused a great deal on cooperation through international institutions and certainly has multiple aspects that can be described as altruistic. But look at the successes that have come from free trade and security alliances. As the graph below shows, the U.S. economy boomed because of their trade policies following WWII. NATO was extremely effective at managing European security both during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. Japan and South Korea have become important economic and security partners, bringing stability to East Asia. Even if we accept the premise that we must get something in return for our actions, America is not being taken advantage of.

Altruism aligns with Christian values. Folks like Vance, who are outspoken in their Christian faith, seem to think that certain principles can’t work in politics. When Jesus says love your enemies, or to give those in need the shirt off your back, or to treat others as you would like to be treated, those ideas are good for church, or personal life, but politics is real life and if you do those things you’ll be taken advantage of. Treating people as means to an end, as opposed to an end in and of themselves, is antithetical to Christianity. All are created in the image of God and thus inherently worth of dignity and respect. Regardless of what they can do for you.

I am so intrigued by the altruistic approach to game theory because it is essentially evidence in favor of the use of the “golden rule” in the hard-headed world of politics and foreign relations. Even if it didn’t work, it would still be the right thing to do. Vance, and the other Christians who approach politics as he does, demonstrate an extreme lack of faith in God’s power. The essential argument is that acting in the way that Jesus instructs us is too weak. To get what we want, we must act more like the world.

This leads to Trump’s transactional politics. The only things worth doing are those things you get something for. Look at the debates about USAID. The argument that USAID projects addressing malaria and HIV/AIDS in Africa saved the lives of millions of peoples is not enough. Doing good for other people and doing what’s right is not a good enough argument. What did the U.S. get out of it?

The problem with transactional politics is that it is void of values and principles. If someone can offer you more in return, then you take it. Trump wants Ukraine to sign away half of all its minerals. That is what the U.S. gets in return for helping Ukraine. What if Russia gives the U.S. a better deal?

In addition to being unprincipled it is inherently unstable. Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem points this out with respect to democracy, but it applies to foreign relations as well. There is always a “better deal” to be had, which means there is no equilibrium and no outcome. The U.S., by pursuing its interests in a zero-sum approach, ends up with sub-optimal outcomes.

Altruism is the better approach in foreign policy for two reasons. First, because it works and delivers better results than the transactional approach. But more importantly, it is the right thing to do.