I wanted to go into more detail on the four goals I laid out, though I will take them in reverse order. That's because the interconnectedness makes more sense (to me, at least) this way.
So what direction do we want to influence the world in? Again, I think it's best to start with our foundation - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
What's funny is that much of the Declaration is rather particular to the time and place where it was written. I don't think we need to go into all the offenses of King George. Instead, the most important (and most quoted) parts are from the second paragraph -
All men are created equal, currently in the broadest sense of the phrase. That is - men, women, transgender, asexual, lesbian, gay - they're all created equal and are endowed with certain rights. Unalienable rights, no less.
Such lofty words make our current politics seem so - small. Little. Petty. How can our leaders claim to believe we are all created equal when they manipulate the system? Clearly they don't think the opinions of certain people matter as much as others, clearly they do NOT think that we are all equal.
But I digress. It's an ideal, and not necessarily reality. But it's the kind of ideal that lifts you up, makes you feel more. Standing for this says something grand about us all.
And yet the Declaration is really rather vague on what those rights are. Other than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at least.
The Constitution does a little more, though I really recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to get more of an understanding of the issues at the time, and what the Founding Fathers meant. I had the depressing experience of trying to explain why this matters to someone who just didn't care. For all that our patriots and politicians keep talking about the importance of the Constitution, how many of them can really discuss the Articles of Confederation? And why their experience with the Articles led to the Constitution? How many know that the Bill of Rights were not originally included. That they were written as a response to the debate (captured in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) where various people expressed their concern that the new government would be too powerful? We had four years of debates about the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added.
So what does that really mean for us, today? Particularly with regards to foreign policy?
I think it's best to consider a little bit of history, actually. I took a class in college on European History, from about the time of Napoleon on. What I remember most was realizing that almost every hot spot in the world today had it's roots in the colonial era. Boundaries were drawn with absolutely no regard for the ethnicity of the people inside them, so you had minorities ruling majorities (with the support of colonial powers.)
This has created quite the mess. The Kurds, for example, are one of the largest ethnic groups without a nation to call their own (and their neighbors are pretty nervous about ever letting them have a nation, since it would probably take chunks of their own territory). The thing is, I don't think the quest for national self-determination is simply because of nationalism.
And I don't mean that in a universal 'we are all human' way, either. Colonialism was disempowering because these outsiders weren't able to treat the local population with real respect. From calling grown men 'boys', to forcing them to learn a different language, to give up their own traditions and beliefs...colonial subjects were not treated as equals. It was often patronizing, demeaning, and insulting. China knows this all too well, since they suffered their century of humiliation. Japan saw what happened to China, that's part of why they had the Meiji Revolution.
Many ethnic groups seek self-determination because they don't believe they can maintain their way of life, their language, their religion, and their culture if they have anything less.
Unfortunately, this also runs counter to another trend - go big or go home. The United States is powerful in part because of how large we are (physically, demographically, economically). Russia, China, and India have similar strengths. Europe - well, if they unify they might be comparable, but each state on it's own? They're actually kind of small. (I remember my shock to realize you can drive across Germany in five or six hours. East to West. That's about the size of Indiana.)
Economically, the European powers are still very strong. But the world is balancing out, catching up. And when the rest of the world catches up, European states as individual nations are not going to be as powerful. (Was it Cheney who indicated Europe wasn't quite as important as it used to be? We don't often think that way, especially given our history with them. Don't be too hasty in assuming they don't matter though. Europe is still economically advanced and we do have a lot of commitments to them.)
This brings up another point, actually. The United States isn't in decline. It's just that as the world balances out, it feels like a decline. We're not as comparatively strong as we used to be. It's like being a billionaire in a world where more and more people are becoming millionaires and billionaires. You still have a lot of money, you just don't have quite as overwhelming an amount of it.
Go big or go home. I think that's part of what's going on with China's One Road project. An economic block stretching across Eurasia could be extremely powerful.
Except...what to do with all this diversity? All these groups that want to live their own way? If you plan to go big, you're going to live in a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society. Otherwise you will constantly have to waste resources, taking troops from one ethnicity and stationing them far away from home where they'll be loyal to the state and not to the (different) ethnicity around them. And if you pull those troops out (in case of war, for example) what's to keep the people living their from trying to break away in their absence?
Point is - human rights are essential for creating a large, multi-ethnic and peaceful society.
Our ideals, although we have not always lived up to them, mean we should treat every ethnic group, every nation, every culture with respect.
That doesn't mean we pretend we're okay with things we're not, even (or perhaps especially) when it seems less important than achieving some of our other goals. We ran into that dilemma in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan practice of bacha bazi.
In situations like that, it's like a person who's loved one is making bad life choices. You can tell them what you think, you can encourage them to do better, and you can cut off ties if that's what you need to do in order to make it clear you don't accept the behavior...but ultimately it's not about forcing them to do what you want. It's about being sincere in expressing your thoughts, and explaining why you think that way...and making choices about how to spend your time and resources based on your views.
With nations, of course, the tools are different. You can make a diplomatic statement condemning a practice. You can provide support for any attempt at changing a practice. You can reduce or cut off various ties (trade, military, diplomatic). You can place sanctions on them - not to force them to do what you want, but as an indication that your nation will not be associated with that behavior.
Note that I did not list regime change or war as one of the options here. For that, I again suggest just war theory.
So what direction do we want to influence the world in? Again, I think it's best to start with our foundation - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
What's funny is that much of the Declaration is rather particular to the time and place where it was written. I don't think we need to go into all the offenses of King George. Instead, the most important (and most quoted) parts are from the second paragraph -
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
All men are created equal, currently in the broadest sense of the phrase. That is - men, women, transgender, asexual, lesbian, gay - they're all created equal and are endowed with certain rights. Unalienable rights, no less.
Such lofty words make our current politics seem so - small. Little. Petty. How can our leaders claim to believe we are all created equal when they manipulate the system? Clearly they don't think the opinions of certain people matter as much as others, clearly they do NOT think that we are all equal.
But I digress. It's an ideal, and not necessarily reality. But it's the kind of ideal that lifts you up, makes you feel more. Standing for this says something grand about us all.
And yet the Declaration is really rather vague on what those rights are. Other than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at least.
The Constitution does a little more, though I really recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to get more of an understanding of the issues at the time, and what the Founding Fathers meant. I had the depressing experience of trying to explain why this matters to someone who just didn't care. For all that our patriots and politicians keep talking about the importance of the Constitution, how many of them can really discuss the Articles of Confederation? And why their experience with the Articles led to the Constitution? How many know that the Bill of Rights were not originally included. That they were written as a response to the debate (captured in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) where various people expressed their concern that the new government would be too powerful? We had four years of debates about the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added.
So what does that really mean for us, today? Particularly with regards to foreign policy?
I think it's best to consider a little bit of history, actually. I took a class in college on European History, from about the time of Napoleon on. What I remember most was realizing that almost every hot spot in the world today had it's roots in the colonial era. Boundaries were drawn with absolutely no regard for the ethnicity of the people inside them, so you had minorities ruling majorities (with the support of colonial powers.)
This has created quite the mess. The Kurds, for example, are one of the largest ethnic groups without a nation to call their own (and their neighbors are pretty nervous about ever letting them have a nation, since it would probably take chunks of their own territory). The thing is, I don't think the quest for national self-determination is simply because of nationalism.
And I don't mean that in a universal 'we are all human' way, either. Colonialism was disempowering because these outsiders weren't able to treat the local population with real respect. From calling grown men 'boys', to forcing them to learn a different language, to give up their own traditions and beliefs...colonial subjects were not treated as equals. It was often patronizing, demeaning, and insulting. China knows this all too well, since they suffered their century of humiliation. Japan saw what happened to China, that's part of why they had the Meiji Revolution.
Many ethnic groups seek self-determination because they don't believe they can maintain their way of life, their language, their religion, and their culture if they have anything less.
Unfortunately, this also runs counter to another trend - go big or go home. The United States is powerful in part because of how large we are (physically, demographically, economically). Russia, China, and India have similar strengths. Europe - well, if they unify they might be comparable, but each state on it's own? They're actually kind of small. (I remember my shock to realize you can drive across Germany in five or six hours. East to West. That's about the size of Indiana.)
Economically, the European powers are still very strong. But the world is balancing out, catching up. And when the rest of the world catches up, European states as individual nations are not going to be as powerful. (Was it Cheney who indicated Europe wasn't quite as important as it used to be? We don't often think that way, especially given our history with them. Don't be too hasty in assuming they don't matter though. Europe is still economically advanced and we do have a lot of commitments to them.)
This brings up another point, actually. The United States isn't in decline. It's just that as the world balances out, it feels like a decline. We're not as comparatively strong as we used to be. It's like being a billionaire in a world where more and more people are becoming millionaires and billionaires. You still have a lot of money, you just don't have quite as overwhelming an amount of it.
Go big or go home. I think that's part of what's going on with China's One Road project. An economic block stretching across Eurasia could be extremely powerful.
Except...what to do with all this diversity? All these groups that want to live their own way? If you plan to go big, you're going to live in a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society. Otherwise you will constantly have to waste resources, taking troops from one ethnicity and stationing them far away from home where they'll be loyal to the state and not to the (different) ethnicity around them. And if you pull those troops out (in case of war, for example) what's to keep the people living their from trying to break away in their absence?
Point is - human rights are essential for creating a large, multi-ethnic and peaceful society.
Our ideals, although we have not always lived up to them, mean we should treat every ethnic group, every nation, every culture with respect.
That doesn't mean we pretend we're okay with things we're not, even (or perhaps especially) when it seems less important than achieving some of our other goals. We ran into that dilemma in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan practice of bacha bazi.
In situations like that, it's like a person who's loved one is making bad life choices. You can tell them what you think, you can encourage them to do better, and you can cut off ties if that's what you need to do in order to make it clear you don't accept the behavior...but ultimately it's not about forcing them to do what you want. It's about being sincere in expressing your thoughts, and explaining why you think that way...and making choices about how to spend your time and resources based on your views.
With nations, of course, the tools are different. You can make a diplomatic statement condemning a practice. You can provide support for any attempt at changing a practice. You can reduce or cut off various ties (trade, military, diplomatic). You can place sanctions on them - not to force them to do what you want, but as an indication that your nation will not be associated with that behavior.
Note that I did not list regime change or war as one of the options here. For that, I again suggest just war theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment