Can world adjust to an American return to isolationism?
The World Needs an America that 'Hunts Down Monsters' (Die Welt,
Germany)
"As was the case after the fall of the Roman Empire, most
Americans will only grasp how much the world benefited from the Pax Americana after it no longer exists. Of course, today's
world order is far from perfect. The U.S. is not an altruistic actor, but one
that pursues its own interests first and foremost. Yet this Pax
Americana is the most liberal global order of all time, and its existence is
useful to a majority of nations - including Russia and China."
America seems poised to once again heed John Quincy Adams' advice: Is that better or worse for the world?
"America
goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy," John Quincy Adams, longtime
U.S. diplomat in Europe and the sixth president of the United States,
emphasized to his countrymen in 1821. In a similar vein, Founding Fathers
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington advised the young republic to exercise foreign
policy restraint.
In his farewell address, Washington suggested that as a rule, his country, as far as possible, keep political ties with other countries to a minimum.
Our detached and distant situation
invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people,
under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy
material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as
will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously
respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making
acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when
we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so
peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by
interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace
and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as
we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of
patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.
Taking care always to keep ourselves,
by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely
trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.]
The
historical DNA of the United States is isolationist - and those yearning to
remain aloof with respect to the world's quarrels are today celebrating a
comeback. In the 19th century, protected by two oceans and a huge land mass,
the United States tried to stay out of the world’s struggles, especially those
of ever-contentious Europe.
In
his 1801 inaugural address,
Jefferson captured the essence of this philosophy with the handy phrase, "Peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
none."
[This is the
three-sentence beginning of Thomas Jefferson's
inaugural address that contains the quote:
About to enter, fellow-citizens, on
the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it
is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our
Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I
will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the
general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all
men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as
the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest
bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the
preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as
the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the
right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are
lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the
majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to
force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well
disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of
war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the
military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred
preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce
as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at
the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and
freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by
juries impartially selected.]
Only
after persistent attacks by German U-boats on American ships did the United
States enter the First World War - distancing itself again immediately
thereafter. Not even membership in the League of Nations,
forerunner to the U.N., was something the U.S. Congress wanted anything to do
with during the interwar period.
Pearl Harbor Ends
U.S. Isolationism
It
took Japan’s 1941 surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to end more than a century and
a half of isolationism. Since then, America, as one of the leading forces for
order, and since the dissolution of the Soviet Union the sole superpower, has
played a major role in shaping major global policy.
It
is a phase that could now end sooner than most experts believed possible. When
the U.S. Congress votes on Syria, it won't just be voting about a medium-sized
country in the Near East.
It
will also be a policy decision about what America wants her future role in the
world to be. Does she see her duty continuing as the decisive military power
for maintaining global order? Or will the United States gradually withdraw from
this unpopular task, content to be one nation among many?
The Failure of
the U.N. as a Force for Order
The
Syria crisis shows that any hopes there were of the U.N. becoming the guardian
of international values and norms were an illusion. If the global order is not
secured by American military power, even taboos like those against the use of
chemical weapons cannot be upheld.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
And
as America’s willingness to enforce such standards wanes, every dictator in the
style of Assad can do what he likes. China and Russia are in any case obviously
not interested in maintaining minimum standards of civility in global affairs.
If the West doesn’t do it, this framework for order will crumble sooner or
later.
And,
as was the case after the fall of the Roman Empire, most Americans will only
grasp how much the world benefited from the Pax
Americana after it no longer exists. Of course, today's world order is far from
perfect. The U.S. is not an altruistic actor, but one that pursues its own interests
first and foremost. Yet this Pax Americana is the
most liberal global order of all time, and its existence is useful to a majority
of nations - including Russia and China.
Europe's Defense
Capabilities are Limited
The
Americans would not be as weary of their role if they felt that their allies
were also willing to shoulder part of the regulatory burden. But Europe, for
decades a global security freeloader, is only marginally prepared to defend itself,
having dramatically cut its military spending for years. France and Great
Britain were the only nations on the old continent that still mustered aspirations
of shaping global policy.
However,
after Parliament refused to follow Premier David Cameron's lead on the question
of Syria, the British have removed themselves from the global game. That is to
say nothing of Germans, who always offer trite words not followed by deeds.
The Chancellor's
Failure in St. Petersburg
At
the [G-20] summit in St. Petersburg, the German chancellor initially didn’t deem
it necessary to show solidarity by backing a U.S. resolution with President
Barack Obama, who is having great trouble convincing the public and lawmakers
at home to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons.
But
those who aren't even prepared to provide the lonely, weary superpower with
political support in a case like Syria obviously haven't recognized the gravity
of the situation, both for the world and especially the West; and this, when
Europe has the most to lose if America turns away from the world and leaves the
dysfunctional Near East to its own devices - and to its European neighbors.
Hunting
down Assad, one of the many monsters of the old world, according to John Quincy
Adams, should not be the duty of the United States. The problem is: If the U.S.
doesn't hunt down this monster or at least put him in his place, no one else
will.
