Is America God?Notes on American Exceptionalism and World Disorders

The reaction to my piece, ’Of Camels, Roosters and Failed States’ and other pieces where I have argued for an expansive and extensive American role in the 21^st century has been rather negative. While some have posited that America is not God, other have asserted that the United States does not have infinite resources and my arguments essentially amount to putting a burden on the already ‘overstretched’ America.  On every pertinent and poignant criticism has been that the United States cannot help peoples who cannot help themselves. That is, tradition, culture and  societal foibles of these other peoples militate against external intervention leading to democracy and normality. The implication is that the United States can only do so much and after its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country cannot bear any additional burdens and the world is/should be left at it is.

 This assertion or argument of my respondents is a subconscious echo of the realist school of thought. Realism posits that the international system is comprised of units called states and these states are in perpetual competition with each other.  There is no authority above states and they operate within the rubric of what is called anarchy in international politics. The corollary is that peace or what may amount to peace is achieved by a balance of power. And what goes on inside states is no business of any state of states comprising the international system. Dating back to the great Thucydides and then given a new lease of life by the great Hans Morgenthau, the theory and the  school of thought is essentially a status quo theory.

 Intuitively plausible and perhaps a sober and realistic account of international politics, the theory however does not account for developments that have taken place in international relations and politics. The   theory, for instance, does not take into account the rise of non state actors like Al Qaeda and the multinational firm or the transformation of state on account of globalization and other structural factors. Failed states and their consequences on the international system, politics and security are of no import in the realist schema given that it clearly states that what happens within states is of no business and consequence to the international system. However, failed states present a clear and present danger to global security and can have a tremendous significance and impact on international politics as September 11 clearly demonstrates. And, broadly speaking, the issue is larger than that of failed states. It is about world disorders that are more compelling sources of threat and insecurity given the absence of a great power rivalry. The question is how to deal with these and who can deal with these nagging set of problems?

Democracy and democratization complemented by equitable economic development are the obvious antidotes to these problems and issues. Axiomatically, this approach involves looking within states and involves intervention. The realist school is then inadequate to deal with these problems. It is an admixture of liberalism and realism that may be the theoretical approximate that deals with these conditions. Who can bring this revolution about and why?

It is the United States that can bring about democratization and economic growth in regions which are resistant to these. Why? The reasons are structural as well as prosaic. It is the United States that has the reservoirs of power that is/are needed to crystallize democracy and democratization across the globe. And it is in the nature of the ‘Dangerous Nation’ to expand and reinforce the ideals upon which its very identity is predicated upon. To stay mute and aloof would be contrary to its very ideals, history and principles. Add to this the provision of public goods that hegemons provide, the picture that emerges is that of  an activist, interventionist United States that vigorously promotes democracy across the length and breadth of the globe.

 International organizations like the United Nations can neither bring about a peaceful world nor serve as conduits for globalization and democracy. The reasons are prosaic. It is states that form these organizations and states hardly compromise on their core interest and principle of sovereignty an the organization in contention, the United Nations, also suffers from a major handicap: great power churlishness and obstructionism. As such, whatever cooperation happens or occurs in the UN arena occurs on marginal and tangential issues. It is then either a concert of powers or a great power (read hegemon) that can not only bring bout cooperation of failing this catalyze action on issues that have a bearing on world order, security and peace. Given the structural morass that is the European Union, a great power concert is not only improbable but impossible contemporarily. It falls on the United States to be the custodian of peace and security in the world. Retreating into a fortress and turning a blind eye to the world’s problems means piling up of these problems which then have to be dealt with urgently. As the wit said,’ a stitch in time saves nine’, it is exigent that the United States take a long term view of these nagging problems and deals with them proactively. The question now is if the United  States is willing to expend blood and treasure in the service of ideals, would the recipient or ‘target’ states or entities respond and evolve along salubrious lines? Or does culture and tradition present an insurmountable obstacle?

Cultures and traditions even though durable are malleable and fluid. And ideals like democracy, human rights and economic growth are universals. It is a stretch to believe that culture and tradition constitute insurmountable obstacles. If this were indeed the case, then Japan would still be mired in a feudal regressive past. The same could be said of other cultures or societies wherein the seed of democracy has been planted and these entities correspond to democratic states and entities. What then are the implications for the United  States?

The country should introspect deeply and then opt for an approach and a foreign policy that corresponds to its nature. America is exceptional. And this exceptionalism warrants an activist and vigorous approach. The Iraq war and the Afghanistan may have dissipated its energy somewhat. But again it is in the nature of the country to revive, rev up and reengage the world. These adventures are merely an interlude and a blip in the historical record of the exceptional nation. They should not thwart its ambition, its creed and nature. The world needs a vigorous and activist United States and the United States needs constant validation and reinforcement of its principles and ideals. The alternative is bleak: fortress America can only lead to a dark and a dim world- a world riven by despair, darkness, gloom and angst. The United States is not God and cannot play God. But given  the world we live in. it is only the United States that can redeem the world. Let the country be aware of this and brace itself for a future that corresponds to its ideals.