Ferguson Unrest, and Its Effect on Foreign Policy

"Smoke filled the air, with riot police closing in on protestors, using tear gas to render them useless to fight back. It was the tenth day of unrest, with scores already arrested or injured, and one dead."

No, that is not in reference to Ukraine. It is not in reference to Thailand, or Malaysia, or anywhere in the Middle East. It's in reference to Ferguson, Missouri, where a police officer shot an unarmed black teenager nearly two weeks ago, and where Americans have come from all over to protest. Those protests have fluctuated between relatively docile and frighteningly violent - something that Americans may not be as used to experiencing directly as they are to reading about in the news elsewhere. Missouri Governor Nixon has declared Ferguson to be in a state of emergency; the state police have been called in to regain control over the bedlam - thus far, the results have been missed.

This is a foreign affairs blog, and in the spirit of international relations, the unrest in Ferguson leads me to ponder what implications our own domestic malaise have on our broader foreign policy agenda. Do they at all? I think so. The Russian Foreign Minister for human rights, Konstantin Dolgov, justifiably lashed out at the U.S. on the situation, publicly saying that the U.S. should not be focused on intervention in other countries "under the false pretext of democracy and defending human rights."The Egyptian government urged the U.S. to demonstrate "respect for the right of assembly and peaceful expression of opinion." Across the world, despots and dictators alike are relishing in the events unfolding here and the hypocrisy that accompanies them.

Two problems emerge from this. First, domestic turmoil undermines American credibility when we weigh in on issues abroad, such as the harsh oppression of gays in Russia or the seemingly endless uprisings and subsequent crackdowns in Egypt. The U.S. is often perceived as a defender of the oppressed, but it becomes difficult to uphold such a lofty defense when there are challenges to it so close to home. It is not unthinkable that countries take to the international stage to decry American intervention when peace - the end goal of such intervention - is not so easily attained domestically. If the problem continues to snowball and grow, it could pose a serious problem for President Obama's foreign policy agenda.

Second, criticism from those that we often criticize for human rights violations is disturbing in that it provides one more thing in common between us and them. We do not associate with the likes of Syrian President Asad for good reason - he has mercilessly killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the country he supposedly rules. Now, obviously there is a stark contrast between the Syrian Civil War and the unrest in Ferguson, but the principles behind both are frighteningly relative.

That is not to say that America is anything short of a bastion of human rights and respect for others. Shortcomings occur from time to time, as they do in every developed, Western nation. However, it is imperative that the U.S. does not lose sight of the broader picture, and does everything it can to calmly quell the uprising in Ferguson before its repercussions broaden in scope and impact other important aspects of American policy.