As a libertarian on domestic policy and a consequentialist on foreign policy, many would contend that my policies suffer from ideological dissonance, and lack a common philosophical thread. However, when one looks at it from a very broad perspective, a common philosophical tie emerges that connects these seemingly disparate world-views together. They key to understanding where I come from is to understand the nature of both the international and national systems.
In the national system, the government derives its power from the social contract accepted by both the body politic and the government. The government is granted hegemony (in this case implying a monopoly on the initiation of force) in exchange for acting as a fiduciary agent to secure the individual's right to life, liberty, and property, as well as to accomplish other goals that the body politic considers legitimate. While philosophers have argued that the body politic retains ultimate sovereignty, and has the right of revolution against a government that breaks the social contract, in practicality the government assumes the power to use national sovereignty with great flexibility.
Since the government has hegemony over its domain, it has the power to institute the system of laws and codes it feels is most appropriate (subject to considerations of legitimacy which are irrelevant to this discussion). Thus, the government can freely adopt policies of libertarianism without the risk of facilitating the private violation of natural rights (since any violation can and will be contained and prosecuted). If one accepts the concept of natural rights (which has been promoted with far greater eloquence than I can hope to achieve by intellectual geniuses like John Locke), it's clear that the government should implement policies congruent with securing these rights.
The international system, however, is multipolar. There is no one country with global hegemony - and the fundamental policy of power balancing ensures that it is highly unlikely one will ever rise. Countries, as self-interested institutional actors, are almost always seeking to maximize their power, wealth, and prestige. Nations act amorally, and regard the concept of natural rights as little more than paper conveniences. If a country tries to act with morality as its guiding force, it loses power and gets left behind. There is no universal power to secure the rights of all people; it can be said that countries are in a state of nature.
So consequentialism in foreign affairs is necessitated (in my view) by the nature of the highly competitive, amoral Hobbesian world order. Countries can and will try to reduce war and promote economic trade -- a beneficial outcome for sure. However, the system will remain dangerous for even the greatest power. One does not have to look to deep to see the lessons from the decline of a great 16th century power, Spain. Spain was reduced to at best a third-rate power, and has never truly recovered since. A national government, as an agent of the people formed to advance the interests of the body politic, has a responsibility to ensure that the nation does not fall prey to foreign nemeses, and instead does the best job it can for its citizens.
(Cross posted at Power Politics)
Comments policy