Eliot Fenton
A
Critique of Nation Building
One of the most prevalent and recurring themes of US
foreign policy is the act of nation building. The US repeatedly invades foreign
dictators, overthrows them, and attempts to establish democracies. Though we
have good intentions, it almost never works. There are two main problems with
our strategy of nation building: our insistence on grouping unlike people into
countries and our expectancy for instant results.
History has shown that people don’t like being ruled by
groups that are different than themselves, whether these differences be racial,
ethnic, or religious. Ethnic differences were the root of problems in
Yugoslavia and apartheid South Africa, and are now a main cause of the Crimean
revolution. Despite the long history of unlike people not getting along, the US
repeatedly ignores large cultural differences when trying to create states,
such as Iraq and the Congo. Iraq’s population is a mix of mostly Shia and Sunni
Muslims. The Sunni minority resented being ruled by the democratically elected
Shiite government, allowing the Sunni group ISIS to establish itself in the
area. Furthermore, in the Congo, unrelated tribes were arbitrarily “united” into
one country after the end of Belgian colonization. These tribes share nothing
in common besides proximity, yet are still expected to live as one country. The
US needs to begin seeing statehood from a more constructivist viewpoint. States
fail when the citizens of the state see their leaders as an “other,” and
democracy does not guarantee leaders that represent the entire public. Iraq and
Congo are failing because of large schisms in their populations that no amount
of democracy can overcome. I argue that instead of trying to implement
democracy across wide regions that we define, we instead allow the citizens of
those regions to define their own states. If Iraqis wish to split into one
Shiite and one Sunni state, the US should not stand in the way (this type of
religious split worked well in India). Additionally, Congo may be better off if
the state is dissolved, allowing regional tribes to create their own
governments. Though it worked in America, US’s insistence on uniting large
areas under the false hope of democracy decreases the stability of the region.
Additionally, Americans have unrealistic expectations
for how quickly they expect democracy to take hold. It is important to remember
that the US underwent a lengthy civil war, and a large portion of the population
lacked many basic human rights until within the past 50 years. Even today, our
democracy isn't perfect, but we continue to revise it from within. Our
government remains free from external meddling, and that has allowed us to
create a government that is truly representative of the people’s wishes. When
looking at some of the oldest and strongest democracies across the planet, very
few (if any) have existed in their current forms forever. The US needs to
realize this and allow the system to run its course. Developing nations need to
experiment with different balances of power until they find the right one for
them. There will be many failures, many revolutions, and, unfortunately, many
deaths (just think of the French revolution). However, the result will be a
strong government supported by the people. The US needs to stop expecting our
form of democracy to appear within a few years of removing a dictator from
power. We must keep our hands off and observe from afar without picking sides.
Democracy is a process, not a destination.
Elliot,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your viewpoint. While I do think it would be difficult for groups to separate and become independent sovereigns, it would be worth the try. Many of the domestic issues that cause the US to intervene would be eliminated if people had a right to choose how they are governed and with whom. Democracy is the answer for the US, but not for all nations. It should be a priority going forward to emphasize successful governing and stability within a nation rather than just spreading Democracy. If we continue to just spread our influence, we risk creating more opposition.
I agree that forming States out of groups whose only similarity is their proximity to one another is a cause for chaos. I concede that later forcing these groups to stay together calls for further chaos. However, I am not sure that encouraging these groups to sever from one another is absolutely in their best interest. What about the economic well-being of these states? Even if they can’t stand being together on account of cultural differences, don’t they need each other to be the best they can be economically?
ReplyDeleteOlivia-
DeleteEconomic benefit can only come AFTER some sort of political unity. Many of these fractionalized states are also some of the poorest in the world. They can't work together for the economic benefit of all if there is constant civil war and political unrest. However, as separate entities, these groups may find it easier to increase their individual wealth, and could potentially find it easier to cooperate as a loose coalition based solely on economic interest, similar to the Eurozone.
Eliot, I think you brought up some extremely good points. An outside power creating a state's boundary does not make any sense. I agree that the people indigenous to the area should be able to come together and form their own government. You brought up some extremely good examples of where instilling a foreign state's boundaries fails because you are right, we (or whoever makes the boundaries) do not understand how the different ethnic groups feel! Also, your point about time is very true. Infant democracies are weak and need time to be able to build themselves up and become strong.
ReplyDeleteEliot, I agree with your argument and I think it's clear that history supports this. Because we, as Americans, expect instant results, we're quick to switch between support and criticism for nation building when we're unhappy with what's happening and it's difficult for the US government to make any significant headway because its actions are so contingent on public opinion. We definitely need to realize that we won't see results from any investments made in weak states, especially if we're deterring our government from making progress.
ReplyDelete