A Book Review
In "The Idea That is America," Anne-Marie Slaughter examines America's founding principles: liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith. She cautions that if America must succeed, it must remain true to these values which, since its founding, have guided it to this day. In a stream of liberal entreaties running through the entire book, Slaughter vociferously calls for America to reignite its sincerity to those vital principles. She warns that America's true strength lies not in how much power it could garner in the world system, but in its ability to lead by example, insisting: " if we don't, we would lose our way in the world."
The book states a number of historical facts underlying the very importance of the American ideals - many of the anecdotes encapsulate and highlight the progress the country has made in some areas and, in other areas, they are indicative of how far the nation has retreated from its values. In the final section, Slaughter, in a voice as eloquent and optimistic as it is forceful, urges America to embark on introspection in order to repair the damage to its polity. She also suggests that America examines the trade-offs it makes regarding its values; this, she hopes, would resolve the dissonance that exists in the nation's foreign policy initiatives. She is particularly confident that success could be achieved through "sincere and open debates" in which issues, rather than sentiments, reign supreme. A similar debate with other nations, Slaughter believes, will make America a much more formidable force in the world:
Launching and helping to lead such a global
rather than dictate answers (p.229).
In the book, Slaughter is very critical of America’s foreign policy which she claims sometimes reflects the opposite of its ideals. Some of her suggestions regarding how this discordance could be resolved, however, need to be evaluated. Thus I hope to examine her recommendations about reforming the United Nations Organization (hereinafter referred to as "the UN") and her proposal for America to address the domestic impediments to the true attainment of its values.
When discussing "Liberty" and the importance of constraint in ensuring ordered liberty in the world system, Slaughter urges America to take the lead in introducing a reform at the UN, one which would increase the number of members with veto power. She believes this would help stabilize the Security Council and enhance its function as the world's security watchdog. It is brilliant to suggest a reform of this nature; what is suspect, however, is the manner in which she suggests this reform should be accomplished -- by “bringing (in) additional important countries (p.41)." It is a little unsettling that Slaughter would make such a suggestion. It is even more troubling if the reader must take her liberal stance more seriously. Although the list of the so-called "important countries" -- Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, and South Africa -- is not exhaustive, the mere listing is prejudicial and a strong indication of an American bias (one which her book seeks to correct).
In a world where states are largely interdependent, one in which even the industrialized countries depend on the "poor" countries for resources and also for "cheap labor," it is difficult to understand how Slaughter could hold some states more important than others. On what basis are they important? Is it on the basis of their power? If so, wouldn't this realist view counter her liberal argument that America's ideals, rather that its military clout, should dictate what role it plays in the world system? Or does she define "importance" by how democratic a state is? Again, wouldn't this be insinuating, as is often typified by most Americans, that only countries who share this American ideal are relevant? It is unfortunate that Slaughter leaves us with no viable reasons for her classification, and the best we could do is to engage in seemingly futile assumptions.
In my opinion, a true reform at the UN, if it must be attained by means of the American ideals, which Slaughter agrees is universal, should be sought in a manner that ensures equality and respect for all nations. If the West must be true to its democratic ideals, it should lead a reform for the authoritarian use of the veto to be discarded altogether? Why shouldn't a majority vote in the General Assembly, on issues affecting all states, be the rational medium for decision making in the world body? The ability of some states to use the veto in disregarding issues they may consider to be in contradistinction to their foreign policies -- as was often the case during the cold war -- or their tendency to circumvent a veto by another permanent member -- a case exemplified in the ongoing US invasion of Iraq -- makes it more likely for any one of the permanent members or its ally, to arbitrarily exercise its preemptive right to the use of force against a weaker nation.
Commenting on the historical importance of the veto power as a balance of power mechanism, Professor David Kinsella of Portland State University notes that the structure of the Security Council and the inclusion of the veto power was a design by the emerging powers after WW II, one which was deliberately intended to prevent these powers from going to war with one another. This is so that an attempt by a permanent member to fight another could and would be conveniently vetoed by the others. This may be the reason why since WW II, although there have been a number of wars -- Vietnam, Korea, Arab-Israeli et cetera -- none of them directly pitted one superpower against the other.
It would thus appear that the superpowers, in using the veto, are only concerned about their powers and status in the world system to the detriment of the less powerful states, who often suffer the most in the superpowers' struggle for consolidation and dominance. This is a realist argument which severely weakens Slaughter's liberal contention. America, as a superpower wielding an unprecedented amount of power, disproportionately in its advantage, would do anything to maintain that status. Its ideals are only important in so far as they are relevant in the attainment of that goal. Slaughter doesn't deny this fact, neither does she deny that a truly representative UN -- one in which all member states would be entitled to equal votes -- would ensure equality among nations (p. 104). However, she falls short of making, in my view, a bold and radical proposal of curtailing the use of the veto power or of its eradication altogether, a situation that would necessarily create a forum for the peaceful debate of the ideals she speaks of. It is in this sense, therefore, that I find her conclusion incompatible with most of her observations and recommendations in the book.
Slaughter strongly believes that the entrenchment of American ideals domestically is key to the nation's success abroad. She is confident that this is attainable, and she recommends a number of remedies that would make this possible. She calls for the expansion of debates on the nation's values to include not only "politicians and pundits," but also the citizenry. She also urges Americans to condemn the assertion by some to be "values voters," a term she insists applies to all Americans and not just the exclusive preserve of any one political party. An involvement of the American people in this all American debate, Slaughter claims, would welcome disagreements and foster tolerance in the search for an appropriate means of realizing an equitable distribution of these values (among all races and between genders) and will also ensure a balance in the trade offs the country makes in realizing its foreign policy objectives (p.227).
The foregoing proposition is thought-provoking, but it is, nevertheless, true. A scrutiny of the American polity is not only necessary, it is urgent. Slaughter puts it more succinctly when she said that to change other countries' negative perception of America, " we need to face and answer hard questions about why we make the trade-offs we do, and when and whether we are practicing what we preach (p. 225)." This is relevant if America must continue to lay claim to any moral preeminence in its relations with other nations. At no time in contemporary history has the need for America to lead by example been greater than the present because, worry of the enormous power the collapse of the Soviet Union has left it to occupy, many countries are more critical now of its moral assertions than they have ever been, a situation that is likely to cause instability in the world system and thus threaten the American "hegemony."
Another important effect of the introspection Slaughter calls for is evident in the ongoing discussion of what constitutes torture, and whether or not water-boarding -- an interrogation technique condoned by the present Bush administration -- is indeed torture. The United States is alleged to have used various torture techniques in extracting evidence from detainees in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.1- Although the administration has denied repeatedly that "America does not torture war prisoners,” whenever it is directly posed a question on whether water-boarding is torture, it is usually evasive in its answers (avoiding the "hard questions," so to speak). Debates on the subject in the media are often skewed by the “ratings war” in which each network seeks to out rate the other.
If Americans understood that excusing practices such as this would only increase the likelihood of their adoption by other countries, the seriousness of the subject would not be lost on the public.
Therefore, rather than strengthen America's intelligence in the fight against terrorism, torture actually weakens America's ability to promote its cherished ideals universally, undermines America's faith in those values, and ultimately sabotages its position as a hegemonic power in the world system. This point, more than anything else, underlies Slaughter's success in the book.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.