This response came from an anonymous reader on one of my networks. This is a rather valid argument (in my perspective) as we are in a time of global crisis, in more ways than one. Collaboration and cooperation should be at the forefront of our political agenda, but is it at the forefront of others? I further questioned America's role as a global leader of peace and how it came to assume that role. In this examination I find a direct correlation in the "good neighbor" policy and dependency theory which I argue lends to the misconceptions of America's giving and challenges the legitimacy of its actions.
In the 19th century, Europe experienced a sluggish economic recovery due to relations and development issues, as well as the disappearance of international exchange. The United States learned from Europe’s involvement in international affairs and thus took an approach of neutrality to ensure its economic position. By establishing a position of neutrality and directing its focus on the restoration of peace and stability worldwide, they were able to become the strongest economic power by the 20th century. At that time, the world witnessed a massive international transfer of wealth from the East to the West.
However, countries soon developed a tendency to rely on inter-American exchange which rendered them not only dependent, but also vulnerable to U.S. policy. Enacting the “good neighbor policy” constrained trade through political and economic affairs allowing the U.S. to tighten its grip on developing economies. The new role of the United States in the post war decade had rendered the world sensitive to the U.S. economy. Through its economic stronghold, the United States was able to promote its efforts of peace and stability in the world by imposing its policy and inflicting its influence into international affairs.
Additionally, although never becoming a member, the United States played a major role in the establishment of the League of Nations, whose agenda includes the promotion of world disarmament, guarantees of territorial integrity, the establishment of the ICJ, supervision of colonial mandates, and others. This aimed for peace, security, and economic prosperity across the world, such as was declared in the Paris Peace Conference, which also pledged to condemn war as a solution to international conflict.
The advantage of economic gains and prosperity, however, soon bled over into international relations which allowed them to assert their homogenous position and policies abroad. A new era in international relations is said to have been set when the great powers embraced the Washington Naval Conference, setting limits on naval fleet size and the constraint of new fortifications. However, had it not been for the United States dominance, then the Washington Naval Conference may not have been nearly as successful. International change was inevitable with the growth of the United States in the wake of vicious war.
Yet, while this may have allowed the United States to take a position supporting a better world, corrupt infrastructures and threats to domestic security make the task less than desirable. To this regard, the United States has been caught in a conundrum as it attempts to legitimize its commitment to both the domestic and international community. However, the fact remains that democracy is a relatively new concept derived from Westernized principles so it is critical that the U.S. strike a balance to retain its leadership position through long-term commitments that produce tangible results, not conflict through arrogance or ignorance for that matter.
6 comments:
I'm wondering if you need to move to a place where capitalism and free enterprise aren't in such obvious conflict with your worldview. Maybe
France or Spain? You do realize the US is not a democracy, right?
Why would you assume that capitalism and free enterprise aren't within the scope of my worldview?
Have you taken the time to visit my site internationalobservation.blogspot.com?
Neither expressing opposition to the United States way of its capitalist-infused-socialist-democratic (I know, that is all contradictory yet a convergence of mixed-perspectives) ideology nor giving it preferential treatment would satisfy my objectives. However, the scope and intent of my writing (as expressed on the home page) is to take an interdisciplinary approach of looking from the outside to within at the phenomena that affects international relations in its broadest form. By adopting a holistic vision as a member of the "world community" I can see the flaws in nationalist policies, how they interact within the realm of international affairs, as well as the contributions that they make to society. Understanding the multifaceted dimensions that prevail in the international scheme of things does demand a dynamic and interdisciplinary approach. When we are addressing an issue that is international in nature then there are political, economical, ideological, cultural, and other influences that distort our introspection. Being encapsulated within a certain socio-cultural identity has significant limitations and restrictions similar to that of tunnel vision. The consequences can have a negative, or reverse effect. A holistic perspective incorporated into a multilateral approach is much more realistic when approaching the complexities of international situations. If you follow my blog, or even my group for that matter you will see the multifaceted approach that I take to different theories. For example, in my first "Environment/Development Debate" I questioned the United States commitment to environmental change. However, I have a post situated already on the calender to be published on Friday that conversely supports the United States efforts at environmental protection and further outlines a framework on which we can build upon those efforts.
Both France and Spain, I must add, have a valid argument regarding the deteriorating image of the United States. According to a recent study conducted by Kuisel, their negative attitudes emerged during the Bush administration but were also based on age, gender, political affiliations, occupations, and status of the American people. The United States involvement in the culture, economics, militant, and political affairs of other countries overseas has also influenced their perception of an egotistical, power motivated, and selfish America. Generally, the United States is not seen as cooperative, but rather imposing and contradictory. Much of their credibility has been lost due to high crime statistics, domestic strife (with third world conditions in a first world country), racial divisions, lack of safeguarding of minority rights, and poor environmental protection. The cultural divide is better explained by differences of perspectives between the two cultures. For example, the French and Spanish define a good society and democracy as offering equality and social protection. American’s aim to provide opportunity, in contrast, comes with significant risk to the stability of the people and the state (Kuisel, 2004). We are witnessing this even today as the nation's economy is struggling. In January alone there were nearly half a million new applications for unemployment ( http://www.dol.gov ).
In my professional experience however, I started my first business when I was only 17, and other at 25. Upon graduation from college, I landed the “dream job” with great pay and great benefits. Capitalism worked in my favor, but that doesn't mean that my neighbor will yield the same results.
So who is right and who is wrong? The socialist democratic French and Spanish, or the liberalist democratic United States? It all depends on which window you look out of.
Helena,
Well stated, albeit from a socialist perspective. The United States provides more support to other nations than any number of other countries combined. Yes, the support sometimes is directed by our national interests, but that is only fair, since it is, after all, our money. We are able to do so because we have, over the past several hundred years, grown to become the most productive nation on earth, a direct result of the “opportunistic” successes generated by our free-enterprise system. If we see that position weakening today, it is the result of government regulation and intervention in that system, not the other way around. No matter what economic “giants” like Krugman postulate, Keynesian economics are guaranteed to fail, since they inevitably result in a spiral toward mediocrity.
As for our socialist-democratic friends across the pond, their “mini-experiment” in one-world government is failing slowly but surely. Meanwhile, under our present “progressive” administration, we strive mightily to follow in their footsteps. Redistribution of wealth via government intervention has never worked for the simple reason that it inescapably results in ever-decreasing efficiency and productivity, eventually eradicating the golden goose that initially fed the system. Margaret Thatcher’s statement regarding socialism comes to mind: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” And, as you well know, our current administration’s “print and borrow more money” solution will inevitably result in impoverishing our nation for generations to come. The only way out of the current situation is to once again embrace unrestrained capitalism.
When people are “paid” not to work (as in most entitlement programs), the natural course of events is a growing pool of individuals, becoming generations, who are satisfied with that way of life. As the pool continues to grow, the sense of entitlement increases as well, resulting in an entire layer of society that becomes increasingly envious of anyone “richer” than themselves. In a pure democracy, they eventually gain enough votes (along with those they can convince to feel guilty about their status) to turn the government into a sort of Robin Hood, forcibly gathering resources from the “rich” and giving them to the “poor.” That is why our founding fathers, in their wisdom, chose not to make our nation a pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic. Thomas Jefferson stated, ““A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” He also said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Understandably, with liberty and opportunity comes responsibility, the responsibility to contribute, to the best of our ability, to the common good. That contribution, however, must be voluntary, not coerced.
The vision of freedom and liberty defined by our original leaders has resulted in an unprecedented ability to help nations and individuals around the world. Since our nation’s birth, we have contributed not only to our own common good, but that of the entire world. The list of innovative contributions in science and medicine alone would fill books. We have given the lives of our young men and women to rescue our allies in multiple wars. We are the first and most generous responder to natural disasters around the world. Is there self-interest sometimes involved? Probably, for that is human nature. But consider a world where the US refuses to respond. What would be the result if we withdrew all foreign aid, brought all our military home, and chose not to respond to natural and other disasters around the world? Would the world be better off?
Thank you, Vance. This is the kind of feedback and discussion which I find both productive and critical to my purpose of engagement and enlightenment of understanding international relations. I must admit that there is much truth to what you say, but as I have been asked a dozen times.... what do we do about it? On my blog I have had many comments regarding democracy as voices argue that we are moving toward a socialist democracy as capitalism has seemingly failed us. Yet, on the same note, we denounce socialism. One of my readers contributed his thought in stating that its the same people, especially the older generations, that are opposing the notion of a social-welfare state (as implicated in the healthcare reform) are also dependent on it for medicaid, SSI, and SSA. Your argument is valid in that we are failing in our current system, and we need to get off of the fence. However, if we restructure the system to serve more of our capitalist virtues then we defy democracy as it intends to serve the people. Yet the "people" who are so reliant on government aid (domestically) will be directly affected, and thus oppose restructuring. What we give, we cannot simply just take away. Conversely, as previously stated, the more we move to help our people through reformist policies that appear to represent socialist ideology the louder they scream. At what point do we draw the line between the welfare-state and capitalism?
Your reference to Thomas Jefferson, "“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" is applicable not only domestically but also internationally. This principle alone has discredited the United States ability to exert its influence abroad. Their rejection of American policy is further substantiated by a display of violence, power, inequality, and racism. If we cannot keep peace and yield democracy in our own nation, then who are we to demand it of others?
The United States has made great contributions to helping other nations, I agree, rather in pursuit of its own goals or not. I have another post on this very subject which discusses the many ways America has "selflessly" acted in response to the needs of others and received no real benefit. Yet we are often exploited as a result, but as you so well stated it too is also human nature. However, again referencing T.J. statement in the previous paragraph, this circles back to democracy. By taking from the rich (America) and giving to the poor (underdeveloped) when we are aware of the corruption and lack of long term commitment then who are we helping?
I also agree that the reality of a one-world government coming to fruition is beyond our reach. Currently, the world is unipolar with the United States holding hegemonic power. Historically, however, unipolarity cannot be preserved as it creates a sense of instability in the global environment to which others feel pressure to balance the power in order to lessen their vulnerabilities. Challenges to power will thus emerge which will succomb the United States to the fate of existing in a multipolar world.
By attempting to extend the unipolarity of the United States through coercion, containment, or other forms of deterrence then the possibility remains that states will accelerate others attempts to gain status as a world power as they remain skeptical of the United States agenda. Through an attempt to exert its foreign policy, no matter how adroit, the risk of resentment of hostility amongst other powers may pressurize and explode to an international conflict. The instability that exists in a multipolar international environment may be diminished if the United States tactfully establishes that it can successfully establish world order, peace, and appreciation for diversity. Should others then emulate a foreign policy of peaceful coexistence led by the United States, then world order might be secured.
Vance,
I just realized that you are not on my network! Please add me at bleaum@hotmail.com and join my group: International Observation. Your post is scheduled to publish at 7 a.m. tomorrow morning. If you subscribe to the discussion you'll be able to stay on top of the comments, etc.. I added some pics which I hope that you like and look forward to your feedback and the discussions of others!
Helena
We should observe democracy in two dimensions, and obviously democracy is admirable in the domestic sphere, but in the international or global image we definitely cannot correlate democracy with peace.
And it is in this sense that in the domestic domain the history is end in Fukuyama's theory, and people everywhere need democracy to satisfy their desire for freedom. However, Obama is only accountable to the US people now that every decision he makes will greatly influence citizens in other states.
This is the dilemma for democratic peace theory and history has to wait for a really long enough time to end .
Post a Comment