One
of the main features of this misguided contemporary foreign policy
debate is the corruption of the concept of Realism. In some ways, the
school called Realism was simply a way of teaching principles long
regarded as obvious in Europe to Americans, whose idealism about the
world had both good and bad implications. Both isolationism and the idea
that America's mission is to spread democracy are typical non-Realist
patterns of how American exceptionalism plays into foreign policy
thinking. That’s why the concepts that made up Realism were
introduced to the United States by Hans Morgenthau, a refugee from
Germany, and most clearly practiced in office by Henry Kissinger, ditto.
But
American policymakers--with notable and often disastrous
exceptions--have mostly used a Realist approach in their work to the
point that they take it for granted. At times, of course, ideology has
overridden Realism, with the two most obvious cases being Jimmy Carter
and Barack Obama. Republican presidents, for a reason we will see in a
moment, have tended to be more universally Realist because they have
accepted the idea of the predominance of national interest and power.
The one who was probably least so was George W. Bush.
And, no, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and John Brennan are not Realists or realists either.
This is a complex subject and one discussed at some length in my book, Secrets of State.
It is important to emphasize that Morgenthau articulated ideas already
widely held and practiced but never so effectively put into words. In
his writings, Morgenthau stressed that the making of foreign policy lay
at the juncture between human nature, the characteristics and views of
leaders, and objective factors of geopolitics. The
assumption of international affairs' thinking was that strong countries
want to stay strong and be stronger; weaker countries want to survive.
They thus must analyze how to achieve these goals. A good Realist
disregards ideology, which gets into the way of objectively viewing this
situation.
The
problem that many who claim to practice this view today don’t
understand is that the Realist knows that ideology does get in the way
of objective interest all the time. The first question a Realist asks
is: asks "How does this policy affect the power and interests of the
nation?" But the
Realist knows that this is the way things should be done, not
necessarily the way that things happen.
Today,
Realism has been corrupted into a bizarre reversal of its principles
which begins by asserting that it doesn’t matter who rules a country;
they must follow a policy that maximizes the country’s interest. Note
the distinction:
The Realist says, “If I were making policy this is what I would do….” Or: “This is what the government should do.”
The contemporary misunderstanders say that this is what a country will do.
Please be subscriber 31,187 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
A
simple example. Egypt has national interests. These include maintaining
peace with its neighbors, focusing on stability and development. It can
seek Arab or Islamic leadership but what will that bring but
instability, violence, and the waste of resources? That would be an
ideological deviation from Egypt’s national interests. After all, Egypt
tried such a policy (Arab nationalist version) for decades and it was a
disaster. The Realist says: Egypt shouldn’t do it. The pseudo-Realists
who control much of the Western debate today say: It is impossible for
Egypt to be radical or governed by an ideology that runs against the
objective
national interests. Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood must become
moderate. [For a picture of the Brotherhood that shows this isn't true, see Eric Trager's excellent lecture.]
At the same time, though, Realism understands that conflict
is a natural part of the international environment and can be very useful for a
regime. If you stir up people, get them obsessed with foreign enemies, and
engage them in international adventures—as dictators including Hitler and
Saddam Hussein understood—they are more likely to support the current
government, excuse its failings, and ignore domestic problems. This is the role
that the Arab-Israeli conflict has played in Arabic-speaking countries.
Wiser leaders like Egypt’s like Egyptian President Anwar
al-Sadat and Jordan’s King Hussein understood that the fanatical pursuit of
this conflict was not in their country’s true interests. But such is the power
of ideology, the opportunism of their opponents, and the value of such a policy
for radical regimes that they received scant praise for their objective and
pursuit of national benefits.
This
is also why the Israel issue is so often misunderstood. The
pseudo-Realist reasons: The national interests of Arab states dictate
that they be peaceful, focus on development, and cultivate friendship
with the West. But they don’t behave that way. Since it is impossible
that internal forces can be to blame it must be because Israel’s
existence and the conflict with it have derailed the natural course of
things.
Such
an analysis, of course, leaves out ideology, personal ambitions of
leaders, the uses of demagogically stirring up xenophobia for gaining
and staying in power, the Islamic factor, and lots of other things. Yet
this is what we are faced with: the argument that if Arab or
Muslim-majority or other states don’t act “normally” it must be the
West’s fault. Arrogance, mistreatment, and imperialism have driven them
into temporary insanity.
For
example, there is a new book by Raymond Baker, a professor and
consultant to the U.S. government which blames revolutionary Islamism on
“our own reckless militarism and our blind support for the expansion of
others [Israel];" why the September 11 attacks were caused by U.S.
policies; an explanation of why the Muslim Brotherhood is centrist, and
why Hamas and Hizballah aren’t bad at all.
If
such things were merely academic discussions, it wouldn’t be so
disturbing. If they became the hegemonic
stance in Western foreign policy debates it would be disturbing. That
such ideas govern the policies of most Western states is horrifying.
Yes, it does matter what ideology governments hold in shaping their
policies.
And,
yes, internal forces generate revolutionaries (even in America!) who
want to fundamentally transform their societies and are not just driven
by foreigners treating them badly
And
yes, too,
centuries of Western history should have taught people about the drive
of some to hold power, to conquer their neighbors, and to hate those who
are different from them. Contrary to the implicit claims of Political
Correctness, such things are not restricted to Western civilization. It
was just better at these things for a whole than were others. Now the
torch of being primary in national ambition, imperialism, aggression,
and racial hatred has been passed.
In
fact, though, as the--forgive the pun--real Realists know, the key
factor governing countries’ international behavior is how their
leaders perceive national interest. There are certain commonalities
between Russia/USSR/Russia; Republic of China/People's Republic of China
(Maoist)/People's Republic of China (revisionist); Imperial
Germany/Weimar Germany/Nazi Germany; Federal Republic of Germany-German
Democratic Republic/Germany; Iran/Islamic Republic of Iran, but the
differences are rather significant, don't you think? Here’s a quick
example, chosen deliberately to be rather distant in time, and thanks to
my esteemed colleague Dr. Wolfgang G. Schwanitz.
In
1880s Germany, the chancellor Otto von Bismarck warned that his
country should focus on peaceful development at home and purely
economic diplomacy abroad, avoiding aggression and imperialism. He
pointed out—as a Realist—that Germany was surrounded by potential
enemies: Britain, France, and Russia and could be attacked on three
fronts. In geopolitical terms, for Germany to seek expansionism in
Europe would lead to a losing war. Abroad, attempts to seize land as
colonies would produce a reaction by the other strong powers, bringing
them into alliance with each other and thus ending in a losing European
war. That was a Realist assessment.
Then,
Kaiser
Wilhelm II came to the throne and disagreed. His policy led to World
War One and German defeat. Adolph Hitler agreed with the kaiser and his
policy led to World War Two and German defeat. Bismarck was correct; the
kaiser and Hitler were wrong. But they were the ones who actually made
policy and tens of millions died, much of the world was wrecked, Germany
was defeated. Contemporary followers of mainstream thinking would say
that such a history was impossible. That of course the kaiser and Hitler
would pursue Germany’s real interests. Just as they would say that
contemporary dictators—including Islamist ones—will face reality and
become moderate. That view is neither realistic nor Realistic.
Footnotes:
--Yes,
I’m aware that one can say that the fact that Britain and France didn’t
allow Germany a fair share of colonies before World War One and
persecuted Germany afterward set up conditions forcing Germany to behave
differently. Yet as Bismarck understood, the ultimate geostrategic
realities still applied. Hitler's policies ultimately didn't sever
German interests..
--And
if U.S. policy is responsible for September 11 and radical Islamism it
would be equally valid to assert that American policy was responsible
for Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack or that Czechoslovakia’s policy was
responsible for Hitler’s seizing it. That game can be played with any
event in history.
--One
of the things the
contemporary pseudo-Realist thinking does is to drain all of the
specificity out of every country’s society and history. Contrary to the
claims of Multiculturalism, the same people who advocate that also act
as if each country is identical, just a matter of different foods,
languages, and clothing but with no basic difference in critical ideas
and experiences.
--If
a weak country's policies fail that might well be because it was
overwhelmed by the power of a stronger foe and never had any chance. But
if a strong country's policy fails it is more likely that its leaders
did not perceive its
true interests and carry out the best possible strategy and tactics.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment