Ian Boyne

"There is no state so powerful that it may not sometime need the help of others outside itself"

- Grotius

President George W. Bush continues in his second term to implicitly accede to that statement by the 17th century legal scholar. The latest evidence of that was his State of the Union address to the American people, which was noticeably more humble and conciliatory than his previous muscular addresses, in which he evidenced all the arrogance of power, especially that of a leader of the world's only superpower.

In that address, the U.S. President wisely and strategically referred to the fact that "the United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran". Making it clear that "the world (not just the U.S.)" will not allow the Teheran regime to gain nuclear weapons. "With the other members of the quartet - the U.N., the European Union and Russia," Mr. Bush said, referring to the U.S. last, "we're pushing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security".

Also in Afghanistan, "NATO has taken the lead" in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive - "the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area." Multilateralism is back. Bush cowboy diplomacy is out and outmoded. President Bush has learnt, bitterly, but he has learnt. And we must commend him for not succumbing to continued delusions over hard reality. He has landed back on earth and is pursuing a more evidence-based rather than faith-based foreign policy.

AMERICA DESTINY

However, George Bush has more in common with his predecessors than some realise. While his doctrine of forward deterrence or pre-emption might not have been shared by every U.S. President (though it certainly was not unique), Bush shares with all other U.S. Presidents an abiding belief in American Manifest Destiny, a sense that America has a special mission to safeguard and promote liberty outside its borders. Indeed, it has been held by many U.S. strategic thinkers that liberty in the United States would be threatened if it were not assured in important centres of the world.

Because of the previous influence of Marxist analysis in the social sciences, there has developed a tradition of foreign policy analysis which sees U.S. actions purely in terms of protecting commercial and economic interests.

Because, according to Lenin "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism", and because capitalists are driven relentlessly to pursue their hegemonic interests across borders, the state acts as a mere servant of their interests and, therefore, foreign policy is merely an instrument of capitalist rule.

Because of the Marxian dogma of the economic base influencing in a deterministic way the superstructure, with values and ideology having no autonomy, cultural and ideological factors were given short shrift.

Richard Nixon's famous dictum was often quoted: "The business of America is business." The vulgar Marxists failed to give a sophisticated analysis of international relations which were simply reduced to inter-state relations among capitalists and their servile bourgeois states.

Even when it has been proven that the U.S. has intervened in countries where its economic interests have been marginal, the economic deterministic analysts have persisted. (For, of course, it can be argued that the U.S. would intervene in marginal states such as Vietnam and Afghanistan because of the Cold War rivalry with "the leader of the progressive forces", the then Soviet Union, whose defeat was considered necessary for the success of global capitalism.)

This kind of analysis persists in the view, for example, that the major reason Bush invaded Iraq was to secure oil and get contracts for Haliburton. It is because of the vestiges of Marxist analysis why this less-than-nuanced analysis is given to the illegal occupation of Iraq. Ideological interests are not taken seriously and this is a colossal mistake analysing American foreign policy.

IMPACT ON POLICY

America's self-understanding and religious roots have a profound impact on its conduct of foreign policy. The failure to understand Wilsonianism, for example, will mean that one misses much of the motivation for U.S. foreign policy action. In an excellent and well-argued book put out last year, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, Professor Christopher Layne of Texas A and M University says, "Wilsonian liberalism self-consciously rests on the conviction that the United States is a model for the world and that its values and institutions are superior to everyone else's. This means, however, that perforce it is intolerant of cultures and political systems different from its own."

Layne goes on to make the important point that "U.S. policymakers believe America's values are good for the United States and right for the rest of the world and that in self-defense, Washington has the right to impose them on others. Of course, U.S. officials don't put it quite so bluntly".

Europe of the 21st century is markedly different in philosophical outlook, though its states are also capitalist and operating in the interest of the ruling class, according to standard Marxist analysis. But the Europeans are more postmodern, humble, and less comprehensive in their visions; more philosophically tentative and relativist.

The European philosophical ethos is more respectful of pluralism, diversity and the politics of difference, not holding to the kind of absolutist ideology which underlies much of American cosmology. This is a significant difference that is sometimes not grasped. "The inclination to universalise liberal democracy puts the United States on a collision course with others whose ideologies, institutions an values differ from America's, and it causes Washington to regard world politics as a Manichean struggle between good and evil, rather than as a contest between rival powers with conflicting national interests".

THE EVIL EMPIRE

It is small wonder that Reagan referred to the Soviet as "the evil empire" and that Bush spoke of "the axis of evil". That kind of language would never be used by a Western European leader - referred to by fallen Defense Secretary as "old Europe". The difference is markedly philosophical. Some see Bush's talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East and spreading liberty around the world as merely a cloak for naked U.S. commercial interests to gain markets to exploit the poor and build the American imperialist empire. But that kind of analysis lacks sophistication.

People don't understand the extent to which Wilsonianism and liberal internationalism can be quite compatible with Realism and realpolitik. American policy elites genuinely believe that the way to advance freedom, democracy and human rights is through open markets and capitalist development. They see the two as indivisible. So for them there is no contradiction or duplicity in hailing democracy and liberty while at the same time promoting free enterprise capitalism and open markets.

As the White House document, A National Security Strategy for A New Century released in May 1997 puts it, "In designing our strategy, we recognise that the spread of democracy supports American values and enhances both our security and prosperity. Democratic Governments are more likely to cooperate with each other against common threats and to encourage free trade and economic development-and less likely to wage war or abuse the rights of their people. Hence the trend towards democracy and free markets throughout the world advances American interests."

America sees itself in its classical mythology as The Shining City on a Hill, the beacon of freedom, democracy and prosperity, the light and hope of the world. In America's self-understanding and national ideology, that country has a sacred obligation to the world to safeguard liberty and - prosperity - in the name of God. The rhetoric has been strong in America from its founding in 1776 right through to the 2007 State of the Union address.

TIMELESS TRUTH

Said George Bush: "American foreign policy is much more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given much is required." This kind of Messianic language, scorned in Europe and seen as the source of arrogance and demagoguery, is deeply rooted in the American psyche and accounts for Bush's action in Iraq, threats against Iran and anger at the temerity of Chávez in his own backyard.

A failure to understand the role of ideology and values - characteristic of the Marxian materialistic (in the philosophical sense) framework, has led many to misunderstand Bush's mission in Iraq and his recalcitrance about pulling the troops.

People need to understand also that some of the resistance to Bush's policy in Iraq is reactionary and based on a long history of isolationist thinking in American foreign policy. Next week we'll explore that.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com