June 15, 2007
American Hegemony, Guarantor of Sovereignty
Yes, America is the hegemon today. That rankles some, causes others to apologize, some others to fear, still others to breathe a sigh of relief. Commentators speak of America‘s disproportionate power, its global reach, its pervasive pop culture. Its detractors say America paternalistically tells other countries how to live, that she even violates other nation’s sovereignty.
Americans like to think of themselves as exceptional. But others, in a less congratulatory tone, will say that we are self-absorbed, even infamous, and have run amuck in the world. That are our sins so egregious that we are actually dangerous, more a threat to the world than the likes of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, or even Hugo Chavez? Such were the sentiments of many on the eve of the liberation of Iraq.
And the liberation of Iraq is what the invasion accomplished. Sovereignty is no longer a guarantee in the modern globalized world. Even Kofi Anan proclaimed that genocide, use of WMD, repeated aggression, and violations of the NPT will not insure a nation’s sovereignty, but in fact endanger it. Such violations of international norms can be used as a pretext to intervene militarily, thus Operation Iraqi Freedom to restore sovereignty.
America is the world’s hegemon, that is clear, and though she stands heads and tails above all others, she shares a situation common to all; for we are all in the same boat – on the same ship of the international system, on the same sea of anarchy. It would do well for the blame-America-firsters to remember that. Anarchy is the defining condition of international relations – no clear over-arching authority to govern international politics. That state of affairs existed long before America came on the scene. To invoke a cliché: the world is what it is. To paraphrase President Bartlett (a la The West Wing), we live in a .357 magnum world.
Now of course America is not without faults and has made mistakes. That doesn’t make us special or worse; it does, however, make us rather like everyone else. But one significant difference is that America’s foibles are pretty much open to view. There is transparency -- look at Abu Ghraib and the election 2000 controversy. There is still respect for the rule of law, sanctity of a free press and freedom of speech.
However, if we are looking for naked, unrepentant violations of sovereignty, that do not meet the criteria stated by the UN, we need look no further than the former USSR, its usurpation of Eastern European countries after WWII and their constant subjugation until the USSR’s demise in 1991. We need look no further than China with its invasion and occupation of Tibet. Is there any question that China would violate Taiwan’s sovereignty without the presence in the Pacific of the US Seventh Fleet? Is there any question that North Korea would violate South Korea’s sovereignty if the DMZ were not an armed camp backed up by the US Eighth Army? This is what “violation of sovereignty” really means.
Could anyone call the post-WWII Marshal Plan and the rebuilding of Japan violations of sovereignty; or the allied zones of occupation in Germany after WWII, or the numerous reconstruction projects throughout the world?
From the blame-America-firsters perspective what missed opportunities America had in its grasp at that time; a chance to show the world how to really violate sovereignty and gobble up vast swaths of territory. But we didn’t. We must have been asleep at the wheel. But we weren’t. Territorial aggrandizement is antithetical to liberal democracy. But the nay-sayers are unyielding. They say we are bungling fools undeserving of our global might and incompetent to wield hegemonic leadership. If America has an attention deficit disorder, as Niall Ferguson has said, it is the shallow memory of that which should make it proud.
After all, never mind the leadership shown in WWII, the leadership of the UN forces in the Korean War, the guidance and support during the Cold War, the leadership in resolving the Balkan crises, the leadership in coalition building in the first Gulf war. America is the guarantor of the sovereignty of South Korea, of Taiwan, and even Japan. During the Cold War, NATO with America at its head guaranteed the sovereignty of Western Europe and Check-Point Charlie was the tip of the spear.
Yes, America’s influence is profound, but it is vastly inaccurate to say that its foreign policy violates other countries sovereignty or is a threat to world peace. Have there been abuses? Yes. Are they corrected? Yes. Should this conduct and transparency serve as an example for the world? It already does, and it rankles some; but let them be rankled.
Lawrence S. Harris
© June 2007
That's the same as if Nazi would say that it is THANK God that Nazi are in power because otherwise things would be terrible.
What kind of argument is this? You are an American or/and living here. You have absolutely no fear that you would be subjected to your country actions abroad ... so it is a very weak to say from that perspective that "everything is therefore great"
So it is in Hell from Lucifer's perspective.
Make you arguments deeper please ...
http://shamick.blogspot.com/2007/06/dont-exuse-everything-by-bush-bush-is.html
Posted by Shamick at June 15, 2007 02:11 PM
Lawrence states: "Commentators speak of America‘s disproportionate power..." This is what angers me. Every time "proportionate power" is used, disaster follows. We used "proportionate response" in Korea and Vietnam, note how well that worked? I'm lucky to be an American, more lucky than legal immigrants, they chose to be here, I am American by accident of birth, and believe me, having traveled over quite a bit of the world I would rather live in the country that can project massively disproportionate power.
Shamick, here is a profound statement, which other country has stood up to bullies and despots MORE than the US? Which country has done more to advance the cause of freedom and free trade? Which country other than the United states is the first to offer and too often deliver aid in natural disasters? Which country has a history of succoring the weak and the dispossessed? And which countries are willing to do so now and have the power to make it stick? Can't think of any? Neither can I.
Posted by GM Roper at June 15, 2007 05:38 PM
GM,
The original column and your subsequent comments are, pretty much, how I end my U.S. History classes. Despite ALL the errors of commission and omission; despite the crimes, mistakes and failings...the USA is THE one that people seek out when they want justice, protection and better vice worse.
No other country, in the history of the world, has held so much power and used it so little as the USA. We've cemetaries right round the world with the remains of our young soldiers...who defended others freedom. We did not stay, when we won, to the contrary, we went back home. We did not dictate, rather we allowed others to choose their own course.
While never perfect, more people really trust the US than any other country. Rightly so.
Posted by tad at June 15, 2007 08:07 PM
shamick, I don't know what country you are from, but I can surmise from your choppy english and statements regarding Lawrence being "American or living here" that you are a foreign born person residing in the U.S.
So with that as a basis for my question (that is, IF you are a foreign born person living in the U.S.) what would be different in yoru home country if the U.S. had not taken the actions it took that affected your home country in whatever way that it may have been affected?
In other words, if you are from, say, (and this is only an example, please replace this example with your country of origin) france, how would life in france be different today (especially the history of france) if the U.S. had not intervened? (keeping in mind that in the case of france the U.S. has pulled their smelly asses out of the fire at least three times)
Posted by kender at June 15, 2007 10:31 PM
Shamick,
Thank you reading my piece and responding but I have to take exception to several of your remarks.
It seems your position is that my arguments are myopic and self-centered, and that my personal situation disqualifies the truth of my observations, and that it all depends on ones perspective.
Firstly, it must be said that invoking the personal attack is the logical fallacy of the ad hominen position. This is always considered the weaker debating position and irrelevant.
Secondly, I never said that “everything is therefore great”. Misrepresenting one with whom you disagree is a liability and a sign of the weaker argument.
Thirdly, I did mentions several caveats or re-considerations in my exposition. These can be recognized when one sees words like ”however…”, or “detractors say…” or “yet…”. Therefore there was an attempt to be circumspect in my analysis. This mitigates against my piece being too myopic or self-centered.
Fourthly, you also invoke the relativistic argument to say that it’s one’s point of view that is paramount. This argument has some merit. Is the American hegemony just different in degree or are we different in kind? But is it not the intellectual frustration that comes from not having a clear, simple answer that feeds relativism? Are all judgments simply rationalizations that are designed to make us feel good? The danger to this way of thinking is that it leads to irreconcilable apathy, the inability to differentiate the real from the disingenuous, all of which is incompatible with human nature.
I am struck by what the historian and political scientist E. H. Carr said; that there is something inherent in mankind that recoils against the notion that “might makes right”. Why? Because relativism does not really speak to the human condition. Why have a mind? Why gather experience?
It should no longer be seen as a cliché, but the human spirit will out. Look at the democracy movements in Eastern Europe; kept alive through trial and tribulation. They would not be denied the universal dream of self-determination.
The resentment of America has more to do with historical trends that show that all hegemons are reviled. Their disproportionate power grates on lesser nations, by either wistfully remembering bygone days of prominence or new nations flexing their new-found strength. It may be that no manner of selfless policy could assuage the resentful.
Concerning those who accuse America of oppression, even tyranny, it is well to remember the petulant nature of mankind. As Henry David Thoreau said: “The fault-finder will find faults even in paradise.”
You mentioned on your website that among the things you liked about America was that “people not jumping to conclusions and judgments”. Sound advice.
Cheers,
Lawrence Harris
Posted by lawrence Harris at June 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Lawrence,
Intriguing post. I must say that although America has done right in many circumstnces, there is room to grow. The transperancy that you speak of is less than you think. Freedom of the press is non existent, and governed by the almighty dollar. Freedom of Speech and the right to congregate are being subverted by loop holes in the law. If our government was truly transparent then we would be able to see for ourselves the documentation and intelligence reports that led us into this war with Iraq. Instead we are given a trust us and a wink by our leaders. Transparency would be charges being brought against those being held in Camp X-ray.
Our attack on the sovergeignty of Iraq was a waffer thin bait and switch that was fed hook line and sinker to an American polpulace thirsty for revenge. Afghanistan wasn't Holywood enough, pretty enough, or cool enough for Americans to be satisfied with. There was no reason whatsoever for us to attack Iraq. Iraq didn't attack the US. Iraq didn't train the terrorist. Iraq didn't do anything towards America.
Now one might say neither did Afghanistan. However their complicty was evident when they failed to cooperate with the international community in turning over the criminals who masterminded the attack. That complicity alone became a declaration of war from one nation to another.
What concerns some is that we are in a war based on an apparent lie. Americans were told that Iraq had and was going to use WMD's. That they were a clear and present danger to American security. This story has changed again and again, and the lies have grown.
By Kofi Anan's statements America would also be on that list because we have used WMD's. We have been saber rattling against Iran, placing missles in the Czech Republic, arming the bigest threat to peace in the middle east (ie Israel), and seriously considering the use of "low yield" nuclear weapons. Which of course is a huge violation of every treaty that we have signed considering Nuclear Weaponry. Now I only bring that up to point out the silliness of the argument that violations of arbitrary requirements deny a nation its sovereignty, and make said nation targetable by the world community as parriah. In fact the only countries that get listened to are those in the "Nuclear Club."
I think that the point being missed is that those that express these concerns are being marginalized. This marginalization is only polarizing America more and seating the different viewpoints deeper into the "group think" that was so sucinctly described earlier. It strikes me as strange that we are in the mindset that disagreement is wrong, unpatriotic, and un-American. I end this with a thought and quote from Teddy Roosevelt:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Posted by psyberwolfe at June 18, 2007 05:52 PM
