A Different History
Taking up Fareed's invitation to respond to Michael's post, I would say that I see more continuity than discontinuity in US foreign policy up to an including the Bush administration. Robert Kagan's phrase 'dangerous nation' seems to me to describe the reality of America's self-appointed mission in the world better than the account that suggests that the post-World War II United States previously was committed to a benign, internationalist, multilateral order but has now fallen for siren songs of unilateralism and empire (of course, Kagan thinks it's a good thing that we're this 'dangerous nation,' whereas --- surprise, surprise --- I don't).
To accept Michael's argument, one really has to believe that the Cold War was fundamentally an act of self-defense, and I don't think that was the case. To say this is emphatically not to argue for some false equivalence between the Soviet Union and China on the one hand and the US and its allies on the other, or to deny that the American empire was infinitely superior in moral terms to its adversaries. There is no such moral equivalence; the US was morally superior. But it is to say that the United States was an empire and empires in my view are entities which one admires at one's moral and intellectual peril.
Obviously, Michael is not claiming that the US acted out of altruism. Where I differ with him is in believing that the US, historically, has never in fact been a status quo power, and thus the idea that the international order America created after 1945 and still largely dominates is flexible enough to accommodate rising authoritarian capitalist countries with their own ideas of what the international rule sets should be --- which I take to be a core argument of Fareed's book --- seems to me far-fetched and odds not just with recent American history --- the wicked Bush administration and all that --- but the general pattern of this country's historic sense of mission and place in the world.
Right, it is at odds with our history.
But I guess in the "Post-American World" we're just going to have to learn to behave ourselves, aren't we?
May 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . this country's historic sense of mission and place in the world.
Why just the other day I was down at the Peoria Rotary Club and we was just sayin' how lucky we all are seeing as how those elites over there in Washington are making sure we got missions to feel historic about and a place in the world so's there'd be some purpose to our lives.
May 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be able to get up the gumption to go to work in the morning if I didn't think that I was part of some larger mission that I have no say in.
May 7, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with arguing over something like this is that it's totally unprovable one way or the other because it has to do with discerning the intent of the nation in pursuing the Cold War.
And since the nation was never all of one mind about it, you can probably find evidence of whatever intent you want to apply to it.
I prefer to assume the best of intentions because arguing the worst of intentions quickly devolves into paranoid conspiracy theory, pisses a lot of people off and doesn't advance arguments against interventionism any better than assuming the best of intentions.
May 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have difficulty in accepting that our role in the world is morally superior to say that of China's.
Clearly between 1949-1980 the communists committed terrible crimes against her own people, but in their dealings with other nations they were quite benign.
We have this to our credit. Intervened in Vietnam, killed about 3 million people, 5% of the population. Bombed Cambodia that turned its rural population into Kmer Rouge supporters that eventually resulted in the deaths of 25% of that population (I accept that we did not actively support and engage in the actual killing but it was a consequence of our policy). Encouraged and supported four wars in Central America between 1970 - 1990 that resulted in the deaths of 350,000, primarily indigenous peasants. Supported the antiChinese pogrom in Indonesia that resulted in 500,000 deaths in a few months, overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, Guatamala, Brazil, Dominican Republic and more. And of course the current war in Iraq is a continuation of that bloody history.
Now how do you spin these actions as morally superior.
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, proving that there really is a blame America first crowd.
China SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge. The KR were toppled by Vietnam with direct Soviet support and indirect US support of rebel groups against the KR.
The idea that the Khmer Rouge took power because of the Cambodian bombing is debatable,but regardless that clearly wasn't the intent of the bombing.
China has supported Communistic dictatorial governments and bloody revolutions in surrounding nations and the only reason they have not done more of it is that they lack the power to do so and get away with it. Everything about the domineering history of the Middle Kingdom before it fell from power in the 19th Century tells us that they have little problem with wielding the kind of power that the US has wielded.
As for the Latin American wars and coups, I don't support those, but let's remember that there was another party involved that was interfering in those countries' internal affairs and fomenting violence and revolutions -- namely the Soviet Union.
And the overthrowing of Democractically elected governments was done by the CIA without the support or approval of the American people or even much of Congress, which was kept in the dark. Once Congress found out about it in the 70s, the stuff was banned.
Congress also banned support from the Contras in the 80s. The President just ignored it.
The real problem has been the longstanding out-of-control power of the imperial presidency not the nature of the United States as a whole.
May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say that during the long Cold War America often took actions in support of local national elites because they were our allies in that war is not the same as blaming America first. It is a recognition that when America believes itself to be under atack it adopts programs that support the elites (both American and foreign) and which often act against the needs of the general society in both the U.S. and in our allied nations.
A nation under threat invariably coalesces around a leader in order to defeat the enemy or deal with the threat. It is a short-term tactic to survive, but invariably calls for a great deal of sacrifice from those members of the society who do not belong to the elites. In the long term it makes those being forced to sacrifice oppose the elites for their insensitive actions.
A strong example of a nation running to the protection of a leader is Castro of Cuba. Without the active and clear opposition of the US he would not have lasted this long. America in many ways created Castro by supporting the much worse dictator Batista and his Mafia co-Lords of Cuba. (The CIA had close ties to Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky and in effect gave them Cuba as a reward for their efforts during WW II.)
The elites who run the nations see this opposition by those who are being asked for more sacrifice (generally by attributing more value to leaders than to cannon fodder) as more threat, and the elites frequently work to repress those who oppose them. In Latin America such leaders literally drove many of their opponents into the arms of the Communists, sometimes blaming them for being Communists before they had chosen such an allegiance themselves.
Generally America has been the better Empire for outsiders to ally with, but the habit of our elites to protect the foreign elites with whom they made their agreements has led to some nasty results. Castro's revolution in Cuba was one of the really necessary revolts. But the American CIA was allied to the Mafia leaders and America's Wall Street leaders feared the threat to the American concept of private property, while both totally disregarded the concerns and needs of the average oppressed Cubans under Batista. (Here is the role of elitism in American policy-making. Every elite since time began believes that it is better than the plebeians they use as sacrifices.)
It would be difficult for Cubans to see the Bay-of-Pigs invasion as anything other than an effort to remove Castro and return the Mafia-dominated gambling and hotel owners along with Batista's henchmen to power. Castro, of course, had to ally himself with the USSR in order to survive.
Where was American morality in all this? We'll never know because the decisions were made behind a wall of security classifications. Those classifications exist primarily so that American leaders can make decisions Americans would not approve of and yet suffer no political consequences. Leaders in a more or less democratic nation have always used security classifications to permit them to make unpopular decisions, often in the hope that the results will be good enough that no one ever questions the decision. (See the Iraq invasion.)
America has traditionally been an open democratic nation in which the needs of the people are considered important, and our attempt to spread this in other nations has been the major reason why the rest of the world generally looked favorably on America. Bush and the conservatives don't believe that anyone but them has the right to determine how America is run, so they have run the most secretive administration in history. They also push ideas like Creationism in order to destroy the openness with which opposing ideas are discussed and taught.
This is not to blame America first. It is, instead, a recognition that America is not perfect and has recently been taken over by a very flawed group of elitists who want everything done their way with no discussion. They have no respect for their opponents and don't think discussion is anything but an effort to prevent them from doing what they think is right. Large inherited family fortunes encourage people to adopt this elitist position, since that is what is required to defend the family fortune and their personal power. These people exist everywhere, and there is always a danger they will get control of a government. When that happens they try to be self-perpetuating.
America has generally avoided long term control by these people, because a nation that encourages all of its population is much stronger than one that exists to support an elite class by the sacrifices of the many. Two generations of military government during the Cold War may have caused a lot of the cultural traditions of democracy to wither and shift too much power to the President, but this election may be a beginning of the shift back to the traditional America.
If it is, we will look back at the recent period as simply a dark spot in the otherwise great history of our great nation, much as we do the relocation of the Southeastern Indians to the Indian territory that we call the "Trail of Tears."
May 7, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand me. Of course, that would not be blaming America first. But that's not what he was saying.
He was comparing America to China and basically saying that America is an aggressive nation and China is benign when in fact China, the Soviet Union engaged in the same violent games that we did.
I don't object to criticism or even condemnation of America's foreign policy on moral grounds. I object to judging America by very high moral standard while letting every other country slide. I object to the lack of balance in the moral judgement of America throughout history that has some people saying that America is the greatest terrorist country in the world.
May 8, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did also write, a few comments back, that
This makes your judgement of the United States somewhat schizophrenic, and very much hypocritical.
Although I feel a great deal of identification with the United States, and hence understanding, I would be very careful to argue about their moral superiority.
In my book, Syvänen does a good job helping you understand that the U.S. government, of which CIA is one member, has a long track record of immoral actions towards other peoples, actions that Americans often prefer to be ignorant of. That ignorance is unhelpful. It blurs your judgement and your ability to draw correct conclusions, and it makes you seem to support the deeds done in your name.
May 11, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your history is greatly flawed.
The only thing you seem to get right is that China's recognition of the KR in Cambodia was immoral, but it was not an example of aggression against the Cambodians. China is simply not an aggressive nation. It really does keep its military at home. The last time they exerted military power beyond their borders was 500 years back when the Ming dynasty admiral Zheng He visited Africa with his fleet.
The Soviet union invaded Central America. What nonsense is that? The CIA does not represent America?? Even if America does act to subvert other countries it doesn't count because it is the fault of the imperial presidency. This just doesn't make sense.
You obviously do not like what I wrote, but how in the world do you spin that into blame America first?
May 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what facts are wrong in my history.
China INVADED Vietnam after the defeat of the Khmer Rouge to punish the Vietnam regime. Not aggressive??!! They didn't just "recognize" the Khmer Rouge they supported it with money and guns.
Read the Wikipedia entry on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Go to the section titled Fall of the Khmer Rouge.
This is exactly what those who complain about the Left's view of America are talking about. You downplay the sins of other nations while putting the worst possible spin on the sins of America. There's no balance in your view.
And I never said the Soviet Union invaded Central America. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I said the Soviet Union fostered revolution in Central American countries and countries all over the world, much in the same way that the US supported the Contras. This is not really a matter of dispute. And let's not forget, that after WWII, the Soviet Union didn't give up the territories of Europe that its troops had taken over. It didn't allow Hungary and Poland and all the other countries that had been independent nations before the war to be independent again. It forced them into being subservient client states. This is also not in dispute.
And yes, it does make a moral difference that America's Congress actually put a stop to its own bad behavior or at least tried to through the exercise of its laws just as it matters on the moral scale that America has also often sincerely stood for human rights in the world in the past (with the present Admin. being an exception). The refusal of the Left to acknowledge the importance of America to the advancement of the very principles the Left supports is also my great complaint.
I don't claim that America is the only nation to advance principles of human rights and individual freedom and justice. Nor would I claim that the world needs America to do so. In fact, I hate the co-option by the Right of America's positive history on this as an excuse to engage in empire building. It's a betrayal of American exceptionalism not a fulfillment of it.
One of the funny things is that the old Anti-Imperialist League that opposed the Phillipine war would have understood that America's unique founding and unique nature -- and yes even exceptional nature -- is exactly the reason that she should not be engaging in imperialism because it was always the temptation of empire and imperialism that most threatened that exceptionalism. Becoming an empire is the surest route to becoming what every country in history has ever been instead of fulfilling the promise of the American experiment.
But the Left isn't interested in fulfilling the promise of the American experiment. You're obsessed with knocking down every possible reason people might have to be proud of this country, which is why so many working class people just want to tell to STFU.
May 8, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry boob. Wrong again.
There was a border war between Viet nam and China. But China did not invade and occupy Vietan. And yes China's policies were immoral. But please show me where Chinese troops occupied or are now occupying Vietnamese or Cambodian territory. Save you the trouble, they arn't.
I am happy to see that you agree that the Soviet Union did not invade central america. It is true that the peasant movements for land reform in central america drew inspiration from Markists ideology. I happen to think they made a mistake doing so because it resulted in the unleashing American military power against them. But please poor boob do not use that as justification for the genocidal acts that resulted.
Ignoring the rest of your ranting, I am very proud of this country. I was born into the working class and have no interest in knocking down our accomplishments. But I am accutely aware that there are others in this country that are working to make America an imperialistic power and I will resist them. That is not blame America first, that is promote America first.
May 8, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink