Global Politics, Security, and September 11:  Prescriptions for the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy[i]

 

Keith Swartzendruber

 

            The dominant realist paradigm of international relations has been slowly shifting ever since the creation of the League of Nations following World War I.  Woodrow Wilson was the first to try and put into practice an institution that would create cooperative conflict resolution to ensure global security.  But overriding cooperation at that time and now is the continued focus of foreign policy defined by national, not global or cooperative, interests.  Realism dictates that politics is considered a science.  Emphasis is put on cause and effect, developing methods to further national interest, and attempting to predict the future consequences of actions.  This objective approach leaves out the human factor.  Cooperative politics is beginning to introduce humanity through the concept of justice.

 

21^st Century Security:  Human Security

            Incorporating justice into notions of security and interest proves problematic for realism.   No longer is means and morality secondary to success.  Indeed the very nature of what defines security and interest changes.  The new security concept being brought forth by an increasingly cooperative global political system can best be termed as human security.  Rather than concentrating on maintaining secure borders and an advantageous balance of power, human security focuses on individuals.  The concept of human security can be shown as a triangle made up of personal security, economic security, and legal security.

             

            At the center of human security is the ascendancy of individual or human rights.

 A definition of human rights still has not been agreed upon, but it can include a whole host of things.  Most basic is the right to live.  This is based on the belief in the inherent worth of every human life.  It is easy to see when this right is violated.  It is also the most radical to fully guarantee.  To do so would mean no less than the abolition of war.  This was the goal of Woodrow Wilson as well as the framers of the UN Charter.  But it is evident that we are far off from this goal.

            Another part of human security is freedom from poverty.  This includes everything from having enough food to eat to having the opportunity to increase one’s wealth and prosper.  In this area cooperation has done more to further entrench poverty than to alleviate it.  Globalization within the realist context of today’s world is leading to a widening gap between the world’s rich and poor.  Rather than trying to partner with underdeveloped countries, industrialized countries seek to apply quick fixes based on western models of economics that arguably have been developed over centuries, not in ten years as they would hope to convince many, and perhaps can even be judged to have failed in providing the most good for the most people.  Globalization based on a model of cooperation would invite underdeveloped countries into dialogue as partners rather than patients that need to be treated with the medicine of capitalism.

            The final point in the triangle of human security is the one that we most often think of when we hear the term “human rights.”  This is legal security.  Many of these rights can be seen enshrined in such documents as the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution as well as the preambles of the constitutions of many other countries.  Equality is a natural outgrowth of the notion of the inherent worth of each person.  These rights are the ones considered in the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  Within this court, individuals will be prosecuted for violations of human rights.  This moves beyond the traditional focus upon states within international affairs and focuses light upon the actions of individuals in times of conflict.

            Interests in the future will be defined by the maintenance of human security for the largest number of people possible, not just those in a particular country.  Nation-states, instead of being a point for conflict, will be a point for coordination of efforts around the world.  They will not disappear from the international scene, as some have suggested.  Rather the nation-state will become a resource to call upon to respond to threats to human security in the future.

Perhaps the best and most developed example of cooperative politics in action is modern Europe.  Much of Europe has been united over the past decade since the end of the Cold War.  The European Union has torn down trade barriers and made economic activity flow freely, even introducing a common currency for the continent.  While some differences may remain, Europe also tends to have a common foreign policy as well.  Nation-states are serving more of an advisory role on the international level while they still most importantly organize society domestically. 

            But all of this has come after many centuries of political development.  The U.S. is far from accepting a backseat role in a new cooperative world order.  Fledgling elected governments in the third world barely have experience governing themselves let alone interact in a cooperative manner on the international scene.  Globalization is providing the economic engine for a move toward cooperation, but not in the direction of human security.  So what is the prospect for a paradigm shift from realism to cooperation?  The process will continue to be gradual, and it will continue to be led by economics.  The U.S. is the key to creating a cooperative global political environment.  Too often it is on the outside of political discussion, opposing actions that threaten its position as the world economic and military hegemon.  The International Criminal Court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are two examples of times when the U.S. has gone it alone, separating itself from global public opinion as well as most of the countries of the world.  In truth, in order to lead the international community the U.S. must first join the international community and show the same willingness to sacrifice sovereignty for common good as many other countries have.

 

Reshaping Foreign Policy, Step One:  Responding to 9-11

The hottest question currently in international relations is of course how to respond to terrorism.  The military response that many expected from the U.S. has come and thus far shows no signs of relenting soon.  People in the administration have repeatedly warned of a long war in Afghanistan as well as a new commitment to the larger effort to stamp out terrorism in other places.  Homeland security is now the top priority for the federal government.  We are still in the reaction phase to the attacks of September 11, but it is not too soon to begin to try and plot a strategy for the long-term campaign against terrorism.  This should include public education (including changing rhetoric), nation building with the UN in Afghanistan, a comprehensive review of all U.S. foreign policy (not just with regards to the Middle East), and a comprehensive Middle East peace strategy.  In order to do this, it seems likely that a paradigm shift in U.S. thinking will be needed.

            The first step in this campaign is a reduction in rhetoric and public education.  Cries of crusade against the very essence of evil are not helpful.  As John Paul Lederach said in a recent essay on September 11, “TV sound bites about madmen and evil are not good sources of policy.”[ii]  Demonization has lead to even our comedians like David Letterman to use profanity when describing Osama bin Ladin.  This is not intelligent discourse, it is a public foaming at the mouth for blood.  The media feed this furor with their editorial empty-headedness giving little if any time to the question “why?”  Education must begin first with the President in the language he uses and his approach to this challenge.  What he does and says sets the tone for the nation.

            Another essential part to the education campaign is the activity of non-governmental organizations.  This must however go beyond the typical anti-U.S. no war movement that always pops up when there is some kind of military action.  This is way too easy.  NGOs must go beyond anti-war rhetoric to provide thoughtful education campaigns giving concrete methods for dealing with terrorism and explaining the root causes of terrorism.  Peace illiteracy as described by Coleman McCarthy must end for there to be any significant progress made toward long term success.[iii]

            A second vital step in the campaign against terror is to not abandon Afghanistan.  Often the U.S. is seen as meddling in the affairs of other countries for their own short term goals and then leaving it for others to clean up later.  The countless proxy wars fought during the Cold War are a perfect example of this.  More recently, Somalia is often cited as an example of where U.S. policy failed and left a country that was already devastated to its own devises.  In Afghanistan, a few tentative steps have been taken.  The UN has and should continue to play a prominent role in establishing an interim government followed by some system of elections to create a permanent structure.  Development aid in massive quantities will be needed as well, especially following the heavy bombardment by the U.S.  Any effort is certain to take several years, perhaps even as long as a decade.  But the U.S. must remain engaged.  It has committed to long term deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo and must do so as well in Afghanistan.

            A third step in the campaign against terror begins to get at the root causes of terrorism, especially in the Middle East.  U.S. foreign policy needs to be seriously reexamined from the point of view of the targets of such policy.  We need to understand why we are hated in order to prevent future violence.  This hate provides fertile soil to grow violence and even for some provides moral support for terrorism.[iv]  Double standards leave other countries feeling abandoned and persecuted.  Often political expediency outweighs larger ideals in formulating foreign policy goals.[v]  This can be seen throughout the Cold War as the U.S. armed future adversaries Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight against communism.

            One particular aspect of U.S. foreign policy that must be changed quickly is our arrogance with regards to the Middle East.  We have often preached a message of peace while at the same time arming countries like Israel and Iraq, increasing tensions and the likelihood of war.  We call for democracy and yet prop up dictators in Iran and sultanates in numerous Arabian oil states for our own short-term gain.  This must end.  The U.S. must have a more even-handed approach to the Middle East.[vi]  It must end favoritism for Israel at the expense of peace and become a more honest broker to work for a peace agreement.  The U.S. must work for the demilitarization of the entire Middle East, including shrinking its military presence in Saudi Arabia that is just there to keep cheap oil.  Policy towards Iraq must change as well with sanctions more effectively targeted and an end to the almost daily bombing that current goes unnoticed.  Our goal should not be access to cheap oil.  Our goal should be developing cultures of peace that can encourage human progress and economic growth throughout the region.

            All of this suggests a fundamental shift in the focus for U.S. foreign policy from national security and interest based politics to efforts to increase human security throughout the world.  As described earlier, this includes personal security, economic security, and legal security.  By shifting foreign policy to the concept of human security, the U.S. will find a much more congenial world to live in.

As an example, one of the world’s most pressing problems within the realm of human security is poverty.  Those in poverty inevitably reach for what ever tools are available to alleviate their suffering.  This can include terrorism.  Strobe Talbott argues that “the war on terrorism won’t succeed without a war on poverty.”[vii]  While Osama bin Ladin definitely was not poor, he used poverty and the bitterness it creates as a tool to strengthen himself and support for his cause.  If people are not motivate to hate the U.S., then there will be no motivation to support terrorism on a broad scale relegating it to extremists bent on personal gain, making them common criminals.

So how does this shift begin?  In some sense it has already begun.  The U.S. waited for nearly a month before launching military action.  It at least considered the appearance of its actions if not the actions themselves.  It tried to build a large coalition to support its action.  These are all small but positive steps towards a shifting policy.  But much more must be done.  Much of this paradigm shift must begin first with elements of public education.  If the people want a change in policy, in a democracy they get it.  At the same time efforts must continue to be made to create reasoned arguments for refocusing foreign policy around the concept of human security to prevent future terrorism to those who will listen in government.  This requires not only scholars to speak out but especially the conscience of the U.S., its religious leaders, must come out unequivocably against the misguided policies of the past and encourage viewing foreign policy through the lens of love that religion is uniquely qualified to provide.  Continued sustained effort hopefully will eventually result in a shift that will begin the road toward a world free of terrorism, not just for the U.S. but others as well.