The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Washington's Neutrality Proclamation And Trump's Ukrainian Proclamation
During the American Revolutionary War, France made the strategic decision to assist the fledgling United States. A primary, if not motivating factor, was that France sought to weaken its adversary Great Britain. In effect, the American Revolutionary War became something of a proxy conflict between Great Britain and France. I'm not sure the French monarch had much of an abstract interest to support an uprising by a ragtag bunch of colonists against another colonial superpower. Still France's support of the Continental Army was pivotal. But for this support, we might still be paying taxes on our tea.
France benefited from the American victory. It is no coincidence that the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States was signed in Paris. France became the United State's greatest supporter. America sent its top diplomats, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, to Versailles.
Yet, the French Monarch's support of American war efforts may have had an unintended consequence--as military intervention often does. The American Revolution set the fuse of revolutionary efforts around the world. The French revolution was a byproduct of the American Revolution.
Imagine the counterfactual. What if the French monarch decided to not assist the Americans, and Great Britain put down the domestic violence. (That would be an actual insurrection!) Would the French Revolution have ever succeeded? Who could ever know for sure. But reality is known, and the French monarch's support of revolution in America contributed to the end of the monarchy. And heads rolled.
Fast-forward to April 1793. War broke out between Great Britain and France. What does the United States do? At the time, many Americans felt a strong sense of loyalty towards France, especially in light of their support for the Continental Army. Likewise, many Americans felt a strong sense of hostility towards Great Britain. Wouldn't it make the most sense to support France?
President George Washington made a fateful decision: he issued the Neutrality Proclamation. The United States, and the American people, would play no role in the conflict. This proclamation today is studied largely from the perspective of the separation of powers. Alexander Hamilton as Pacificus argued that Washington had the executive power to issue the proclamation. James Madison as Helvidius argued that Congress, and not the President, had the power to set foreign policy. But beyond these legal issues, Washington made a political judgment. He deemed it better to stay neutral, even at the cost of alienating America's staunchest ally. Washington recognized that in the field of foreign affairs, alliances are fluid. Allies become enemies and enemies become allies. These relationships are not fixed in stone, but wax and wane based on present-day circumstances. Several months after the Proclamation, France recalled Citizen Genet.
I think history has vindicated Washington's political judgment as an important act of statecraft. But in modern times, Washington's vision has been obscured. Institutions like the United Nations and NATO are premised on the notion that all members must treat other members equally in perpetuity. And after World War II, there have been a never-ending string conflicts where powerful nations exert military force to promote some aspirational goal. In each case, those conflicts have been largely unsuccessful at the cost of much bloodshed. Korea. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. And so on.
I write this as a reformed Hawk! If you had talked to me in 2002 or 2003, I would have said the Bush Doctrine was just, and the United States had the moral cause to spread democracy around the globe. The events of the last decade or so have convinced me that model is so badly flawed. How many Americans died in Afghanistan over the course of two decades? And what happened as soon as Americans pulled? The Taliban resumed power.
This background brings me to the current conflict in Ukraine. I don't pretend to possess any special knowledge about foreign policy. But from my narrow viewpoint, I see not a revolution of foreign policy, but a restoration. Trump is doing what Washington recognized early on: it will no longer be the policy of the United States to support military efforts abroad unless those conflicts directly advance American interests. Trump said, "I'm not aligned with Putin. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America." The failures of the past century provide ample support for Trump's view. Elites will howl that we are abandoning our allies and post-World War II settlements, and so on. These relationships are not fixed in stone, but wax and wane based on present-day circumstances.
To be sure, there will likely be a tragic loss for the Ukrainians. But those losses are compounded on top of so many more losses over the past several years. From the outset, this was a futile war that could never be won by Ukraine. At most, this conflict could have led to a fragile stalemate that could explode at any time. When Trump says the war could have been avoided, he means that Ukraine should have simply surrendered a war it could not win, and relinquished the territory that was sought by Russia. Treatises of law review articles about international law says that countries do not barter territory anymore. Says who? Law professors?
At least in ancient times, when a larger nation threatened a smaller nation, and demanded certain territory, the smaller nation faced a stark choice: surrender the land or suffer mass casualties and then surrender the land. The post-WWII settlement provides that other large nations will intervene to help the small nation to promote some aspirational principles. But that approach seldom works. And it pains elites to admit as much. Trump says what others are unwilling to say. He does so crassly, and in an insulting fashion, but stripped of the hyperbole, his message is a timeless one. (And I have to imagine Trump harbors some resentment against Zelensky in particular for the events leading to the first impeachment.)
I think restoration describes the Trump approach in more ways than one. On a panel, I recently praised DOGE as a way to destroy the Wilsonian civil service model, and bring back the Jacksonian spoils system. Another panelist said that it was wrong to praise Jackson, because the spoils system was so problematic. To be sure, there were problems with the spoils system, but I see far greater problems with the permanent bureaucracy. If forced to choose between Wilson and Jackson, I know who I'd pick. Again, we are witnessing a restoration, not a revolution.
