|
Since the United States led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Western world has been sharply divided on the purpose of this costly war. Though voices on both sides have argued that the Middle East will be better off in the long run without Saddam Hussein in power, myriad statements from Europe and other countries have been critical of what America and its allies have done. A global poll last year by the BBC World Service revealed that some people even felt the world had become a more dangerous place as a result of President Bush’s 2006 reelection. It is clear that the war in Iraq has distanced old allies and strained friendships in this new century.
WHY THE DIVISION?
Henry Nau, professor of political science and international economic affairs at George Washington University, believes it is possible to understand what drives the differences in today’s international affairs. At its very core, Nau asserts that the answer revolves around U.S. national identity and the use of power. In a recent speech, he explained how some international relations theorists separate the various perspectives.
First are the realists, those who view the world in terms of power and national sovereignty. “The realists observe conflict in the world and realize that the world is filled with struggle,” said Nau. “There is no world 911 number for everyone to call upon, so everyone must look out for themselves.” Realists believe that a nation needs to be strong in order to ensure its own survival. However, adherents to this view would not support preemptive strikes on other nations. The main aim of the realists is to preserve the status quo and to preserve a world of diversity.
Next, according to Nau, are the institutionalists. They recognize the same divided world as the realists, but they rely on international institutions such as the United Nations to resolve conflicts. Institutionalists believe that if everyone could get together to talk over disputes, better solutions would result, and eventually all differences would be resolved.
The third group is one that Nau reluctantly calls the idealists: “These are what some would call the Neo Cons.” Idealists are individuals who view the world not in terms of power but of values. They believe that nations need to advocate and push their values on others before another group forces its own values on them. This approach tends to nullify other people’s values in an effort to protect oneself and one’s nation.
Having outlined the three groups and their worldviews, Nau went on to analyze how, in America, each one approaches national identity. The realists view the United States as the world’s only superpower. They advocate the use of America’s massive power to stabilize the world and maintain peace. The institutionalists view the nation as one player among many on the international scene. They want America to see itself as one among equals around the diplomatic table. Institutionalists view the current administration as having abandoned the world community and adopting a unilateral, go-it-alone approach. The idealists view America as the nation that must impose its own core values on others in order to promote its unique approach to freedom and democracy.
THE WORLD’S VIEW
Of course, how the rest of the world sees the United States also needs to be considered, and these worldviews must be taken into account as well.
Because of a perceived disconnect between the values that America claims to hold and those that seem to be outwardly displayed, some view the United States with skepticism. They challenge the idealists’ agenda on the basis of hypocrisy. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver stated, in a 2004 address on the issue of church and state, that the United States was close to losing its hold on national identity. “Hostility to religion in our domestic public life makes Americans unable to think clearly overseas,” he said. “This is a fatal weakness.” But in the same speech, the archbishop warned that America was making mistakes similar to Europe’s. He believes that Europe has lost “any sense of a common future” because of moves toward secularism and “demographic collapse.”
Others view the United States with hostility because of its perceived national arrogance on a grand scale and its rejection of the institutionalists’ position. In an article on Europe’s response to the second term of the Bush administration, Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Policy in Berlin, said, “What we want is very simple: more cooperation in terms of effective multi-lateralism.” In his view, the answer to whether or not the United States will enter into such cooperation is still very much up in the air.
Despite these views, there are those in the realist camp around the world (many of them among the Iraqi people) who continue to see America in a rather positive light—as a bastion against tyranny.
Whichever perspective one adopts, however, it is certain that American foreign policy will be tested in the near future. In his book At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy, Nau addresses some of the potential difficulties ahead. He writes, “The success of U.S. foreign policy in the twenty-first century will be determined by domestic developments in U.S. relations with four principal sets of countries or regions.”
He emphasizes that “the first and most important relationship for the United States is that between the United States and other mature democracies in Europe. This relationship is not only closest to the core of America’s own national identity, it represents over half of the military capacity of the entire world. This relationship is thus the anchor in the world for both U.S. identity and U.S. relative economic and military power.”
Nau suggests that if the United States and the European Union drift apart, “seismic shock waves will once again divide the world’s richest and most powerful nations. America’s position in the world will dramatically weaken, and threats to America’s national interests will exponentially increase.”
Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, agrees that European nations should not distance themselves from the United States. In an article published in the Economist, he wrote: “For all of our differences, we should be very clear. Europe and America share the same values. We should stick together. That requires a strong transatlantic alliance” (“What I’ve Learned,” May 31, 2007).
However, Blair foresees a purpose in a strong European identity separate from their historical ally across the Atlantic. In the same article, he remarked: “A weak Europe is a poor ally. That is why we need closer co-operation between the EU and effective European institutions. In a world in which China and India will each have a population three times that of the EU, anything else is completely out of date.”
Blair’s appeal for cooperation between nations that may be fundamentally at odds with one another is admirable. And yet it may mean that these nations will need to set aside their deeply held ideologies in order to effectively walk together.
Historically this kind of cooperation is rare. In fact, in a discussion with His disciples, Jesus Christ predicted that nations would continue to struggle with one another throughout their existence. He told His followers that this would lead to an ever-increasing level of violence and destruction. And “wars and rumors of wars” will be the normal course that nations will take toward their neighbors. Jesus, understanding the human mind, explained that “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:6–7, New King James Version). These conflicts, along with their accompanying ideologies, will not lead to peace and greater stability. Christ knew that they would lead to what He called “the beginning of sorrows” (verse 8). It seems that we are unable to set aside differences in order to work toward a common purpose.
The New Testament tells us that humanity will fight on for what we desire, feel we deserve, and are unable to obtain. James asks, “Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen?” He provides the answer, which reverberates throughout the history of diplomacy. These struggles “come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don’t have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn’t yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it” (James 4:1–2, The Message Bible).
Clearly, there is a correlation between what a nation desires for itself and how it will act to obtain it.
There is no doubt that the United States will continue to struggle internally and externally with its national identity and its worldview. It is a debate that will determine the nation’s course in its foreign policy and influence the approach and ultimately the identities taken on by other nations in the years ahead.
DONALD R. HORNSBY
Return to top of page
|