If we're going to have a consistent strategy, we need to cover what policies have been in play throughout our history.
First, the concept that America should be the "city upon a hill". It's basically a non-interventionist stance. It says that we will lead by example, make our success an inspiration to other nations...and not go around trying to force other nations to become like us. It has the advantage of allowing us to keep true to our values while not getting embroiled in war around the world, since the focus is internal rather than external. The disadvantage is that we grew to be a global power, so we can't really pretend that our actions have no effect on the rest of the world. What we do, who we support, who we shun...those all have an impact. Having one standard for ourselves and another for the rest of the world is, again, dissonant.
Next came the Monroe Doctrine, which basically opposed European colonialism in the Americas.
The article shows there were a couple of other doctrines and expansions, but the next big one was the Roosevelt Corollary, which again had the US intervening against European powers...but also meant intervening in the smaller nations to our south.
If you read the link, you can see problems already with our policy. Did opposing European influence mean opposing communism (especially Russia) during the Cold War? Did that come at the expense of national sovereignty, leading us to interfere in ways just as bad as the European powers during the colonial era? Was this a benevolent gesture, or a way of securing our own influence at the expense of our neighbors? The United States was growing into a world power, and started using that power...and there's a lot of room for debate over how it was used.
Next I want to point out President Wilson's Fourteen Points and the influence of Wilsoniasm. Even though his Fourteen Points didn't make it into the Treaty of Versailles (and the United States never joined the League of Nations) his beliefs still have influence today.
And finally, we need to talk about the Cold War and our strategy of containment and the Truman Doctrine. This one is particularly interesting given our current relations with Russia. NATO was originally created as part of our strategy to contain the Soviet Union, so Russia sees NATO expansion as a threat. (There's also some debate over whether the Soviet Union was expansionist, or more concerned with controlling a large sphere of influence in order to prevent fighting on home territory. The Eastern Front of World War II was particularly devastating.)
This post mostly just linked to articles with more in depth discussions of the various doctrines and corollaries. That's because I don't see the point in typing up things you can read elsewhere. It's important to know, though, for any discussion on how we should handle the challenges of today. Those challenges, btw, include the growth of non-state actors (multi-national corporations, non-profit organizations, individuals able to influence matters on the global stage through hacking, and more) as well as the current balance of power.
One last thing about that. There's another theory in international relations that basically says war is more likely to occur when you've got a great power in decline and a new rising power. The Power Transition Theory seems to cover this, though it's not quite what I recall...the wikipedia article is more focused on hegemonic power. The gist of it is this, though. You get a nation like England back when it was a global empire, and weakening. It still thinks of itself as a great nation and expects to have the same level of influence it always had. Then you have rising nations, like Germany, who are beginning to exert themselves and expect to have influence in line with their strength. This can lead to war, as the declining power doesn't want to give up what they have and the rising power wants the respect seen as their due.
This is part of why China's claim to a 'peaceful rise' was so important. It basically said "we know we're growing more powerful and we expect to do so without going to war". Given the current state of global affairs, I'm not entirely sure this is possible. First of all, China has been stirring up national sentiment (though you could say that about us, as well, right?)...the problem with that is it's a bit like playing with fire. If you encourage it too much, then nationalists will start wondering why you are letting other powers disrespect your great nation. China has already had to suppress national sentiment w/regards to the South China Sea. Most foreign policy analysts seem to think that China (and the United States) know that war would be devastating and have no intentions of letting it get that far, but the powers that be are not always as in control as they think. Consider the history of a completely different nation - Japan - where nationalist young military leaders basically started the invasion of Manchuria without any orders from the central government.
First, the concept that America should be the "city upon a hill". It's basically a non-interventionist stance. It says that we will lead by example, make our success an inspiration to other nations...and not go around trying to force other nations to become like us. It has the advantage of allowing us to keep true to our values while not getting embroiled in war around the world, since the focus is internal rather than external. The disadvantage is that we grew to be a global power, so we can't really pretend that our actions have no effect on the rest of the world. What we do, who we support, who we shun...those all have an impact. Having one standard for ourselves and another for the rest of the world is, again, dissonant.
Next came the Monroe Doctrine, which basically opposed European colonialism in the Americas.
The article shows there were a couple of other doctrines and expansions, but the next big one was the Roosevelt Corollary, which again had the US intervening against European powers...but also meant intervening in the smaller nations to our south.
If you read the link, you can see problems already with our policy. Did opposing European influence mean opposing communism (especially Russia) during the Cold War? Did that come at the expense of national sovereignty, leading us to interfere in ways just as bad as the European powers during the colonial era? Was this a benevolent gesture, or a way of securing our own influence at the expense of our neighbors? The United States was growing into a world power, and started using that power...and there's a lot of room for debate over how it was used.
Next I want to point out President Wilson's Fourteen Points and the influence of Wilsoniasm. Even though his Fourteen Points didn't make it into the Treaty of Versailles (and the United States never joined the League of Nations) his beliefs still have influence today.
And finally, we need to talk about the Cold War and our strategy of containment and the Truman Doctrine. This one is particularly interesting given our current relations with Russia. NATO was originally created as part of our strategy to contain the Soviet Union, so Russia sees NATO expansion as a threat. (There's also some debate over whether the Soviet Union was expansionist, or more concerned with controlling a large sphere of influence in order to prevent fighting on home territory. The Eastern Front of World War II was particularly devastating.)
This post mostly just linked to articles with more in depth discussions of the various doctrines and corollaries. That's because I don't see the point in typing up things you can read elsewhere. It's important to know, though, for any discussion on how we should handle the challenges of today. Those challenges, btw, include the growth of non-state actors (multi-national corporations, non-profit organizations, individuals able to influence matters on the global stage through hacking, and more) as well as the current balance of power.
One last thing about that. There's another theory in international relations that basically says war is more likely to occur when you've got a great power in decline and a new rising power. The Power Transition Theory seems to cover this, though it's not quite what I recall...the wikipedia article is more focused on hegemonic power. The gist of it is this, though. You get a nation like England back when it was a global empire, and weakening. It still thinks of itself as a great nation and expects to have the same level of influence it always had. Then you have rising nations, like Germany, who are beginning to exert themselves and expect to have influence in line with their strength. This can lead to war, as the declining power doesn't want to give up what they have and the rising power wants the respect seen as their due.
This is part of why China's claim to a 'peaceful rise' was so important. It basically said "we know we're growing more powerful and we expect to do so without going to war". Given the current state of global affairs, I'm not entirely sure this is possible. First of all, China has been stirring up national sentiment (though you could say that about us, as well, right?)...the problem with that is it's a bit like playing with fire. If you encourage it too much, then nationalists will start wondering why you are letting other powers disrespect your great nation. China has already had to suppress national sentiment w/regards to the South China Sea. Most foreign policy analysts seem to think that China (and the United States) know that war would be devastating and have no intentions of letting it get that far, but the powers that be are not always as in control as they think. Consider the history of a completely different nation - Japan - where nationalist young military leaders basically started the invasion of Manchuria without any orders from the central government.
No comments:
Post a Comment