The topic of US-Eurepean relations has been hot in news and also academic journals ever since the war in Iraq. In the October issue of International Affairs Strobe Talbott from the Brookings Institute chimes in on the debate with an article entitled “War in Iraq, Revolution in America.”
Great title, but I have mixed thoughts on the content. Talbott starts by arguing that, “a nation-state is a territory controlled by a single government inhabited by a distinct population with a common culture that commands loyalty and shapes the identity of its citizens” and thus by definition America (unlike France, Sweden or England) is not a nation-state, “in the Westphalian sense”
The problem with this is that, is that there are few, if any, examples of countries which are nation-states, “in the Westphalian sense”…
…unless you take it to mean something that at the very least makes his assertion about America patently false. For example, it is true that there is a group of people (a distinct population) who live within the territory of France with a common culture. They have loyalty towards the government of France and presumably only the government of France and that government shapes their identity. However, if this is all that is meant by this definition then the US also has such a distinct population within its borders, in fact, it has several of them.
To be fair, Talbott might have meant to say that the nation-state and the distinct population are coterminous. However, that is not only false in the cases of ALL nation-states, but the normative claims which often follow from such a claim have historically been the source of justification for all manner of slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and domestic discrimination on a massive scale.
When Talbott turns his attention to explaining America’s exceptionalism in foreign policy, he suggests that instead of Europe’s “balance of power” politics, the “animating premise of US foreign policy has always been the righteous imbalance of power; that is, an imbalance in favour of the US, its friends, its allies, its protégés and, crucially, its fellow democracies” (p1038) In some ways, this seems right on the mark. In American rhetoric and amongst Americans, there is no doubt that we think of foreign policy in terms of, “Going forth and doing justice in the world,” and helping our allies and other democracies. After all, we are the land of the free and home of the brave.
However, I don’t see how US foreign policy can be thus distinguished from say, the French or Chinese. What country doesn’t do the same? Who doesn’t favor their allies and friends, even when this would tilt the balance in their favor? Which other democracy would work against their allies and fellow democracies for the sake of preserving a balance of power? Perhaps there are such circumstances, but would America, because of its “animating premise” of foreign policy, behave differently? I doubt it.
Talbott rounds out his paper with the observation that, like the French revolution, the Jacobins (Bush’s foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11) may now be giving way to moderates and that Bush and his administration is returning to its multilateral roots. “We are now seeing the Thermidor of the Bush revolution…” he says, but ends by confessing that harmony has not returned to the Atlantic relationship.
I think there is an important point made here, but there is no discussion as to why this “radical” phase of Bush’s foreign policy might (and I say only might) be giving way. I would argue that the true costs of the foreign policy of this administration are only beginning to be felt and all of us will feel the repercussions for some time to come.
The capture of Saddam, the Libyan abandonment of weapons, and some progress in North Korea are all victories that the administration will point to in the coming election. What is more difficult to measure, but I would argue, more important in the long run, however, is America’s loss of legitimacy and trust in the eyes of the world community. Coupled with violent and passionate hatred for our “benevolent” empire, you get a dangerous mix.