Notes
Structure
Books
Archive
Email Listserve
Links
Contact Us
Subscribe/Membership
Home

War and Peace in the Twilight of the Nation-State System: Two Directions for the American People Two Different Histories

By John Rensenbrink

In the hope-shattered days of the Great Depression, some 70 years ago, a newly elected President shouted encouragement to his countrymen and declared, “We have a rendezvous with destiny”. Some 70 years earlier another President, trying to steer the ship of state through as bloody a civil war as humankind has ever experienced, asked whether “ this nation, or any nation so conceived [in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal] shall long endure.”

Today again, we the people of the United States stand before history. In this new moment of peril, our history is not only our history, but the world’s history, too. What we do with our power, our wealth, our vaunted values of liberty and justice for all, drives us -- and because of us, drives the world -- in one of two directions. In the one direction lie imperial power and a long-drawn out struggle for world supremacy. In the other direction lies a protracted fight for democracy and diversity at home and for a planet of multilateral governing institutions in which all peoples share; and through which all nations and peoples unite to overcome the poisoning of the planet and build a flourishing world economy at peace with nature.

We have reached that point where this choice is becoming more evident every year. Economic and financial globalization and worldwide climate change demand it. The shaky foundations of an increasingly obsolete nation-state system require it. Widespread access to weapons that kill and maim civilians, even more readily it seems than military personnel, cries out for it. The technologies of communication invite it in every way.

Which way do we want to go? What vision of our future do we hold dear? What pathway to that future gives us a chance to get there?

United States at the Crossroads
. For several decades, and especially in the decade since the fall of the Wall in 1989 and the demise of the Soviet Union, the policies and prophecies of our government have signaled a bid for pre-eminence in the world and, because that is expensive, a consequent downplaying of programs for equality and justice at home. But that bid was cloaked in rhetorical garments that proclaimed commitment to peace, multilateralism, and (in the days of the Cold War) containment, collective security, and the like. It was widely touted by our top elites and even believed by many of them, that America was on the side of a just and peaceful world order in concert with other nations.
But those garments have been torn off now by George W. Bush and his administration. What has emerged is “The Project for the New American Century.” It is a frank and unblinking affirmation of a policy and a prophecy that calls for the United States of America, as the world’s only super-power, to build and enforce a peace in the world as part of an American destiny. This is the shape of the future that the people of the United States are now being asked to embrace and support. Not always in so many words – but the thrust and the intent is there and it is meant to prevail.

Will the people of the United States go for this? Some may scoff that such a fate is impossible, that democratic values and commitment to peace in concert with other nations are too deeply embedded in our institutions and in our collective consciousness to be shunted aside.

But there are hard factors at work that lead one to believe that “The Project for the New American Century” could be promoted successfully and could convince enough people to follow along. Two massive factors stand out: the twilight of the nation-state system at a time when there is just one super-power in the world; and the absence of a persuasive vision for America that credibly proposes to meet this situation in a manner fundamentally different from that pushed by the Bush administration.

The Dying of the Nation-State System
The world is wobbling in a deep structural impasse right now. In a functioning nation-state system, national security could to a degree be achieved through a balance of power – with help from astute diplomacy, international treaties, and embryonic international law. But, as is widely perceived and also widely lamented, the nation-state system that has been in place for several hundred years, is showing severe cracks and in fact is falling apart. These cracks were to some degree hidden from view after WWII because of a standoff between two super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Their struggle seemed to be in the mode of the old “balance of power”.
But the Soviet Union dissolved. With its destruction and break-up, only one super power remained. How could, how would, power in the world be structured now that the old semblance of order provided by the US/Soviet standoff was gone? How would nations and peoples everywhere find security? There seemed to be, and there was, a vacuum of power in the world. And power abhors a vacuum.
Who or what will fill that vacuum? And how will it be done?
The prime candidate is the one remaining super power. And sure enough, the United States moved in -- again and again. And was called in -- again and again. It is important and just, I think, to emphasize both: “moved in” and “called in”.
For a while, the United States was feeling its way. And though the administrations of the senior Bush and of Clinton sought to move cautiously, they became more and more embroiled in scores of disputes big and small around the world, and the administrators were also enamored by this opportunity to display skill, judgment and control. In many cases, they were pushed by footloose mega-corporations. They were also pushed, and increasingly wanted to be pushed, by what they perceived to be, following the conventional wisdom, the demands of national security, including energy security, the biggest factor in the fate of nations today. But the security they thought of, Republican and Democrats alike, is security as defined by the dynamics of the old nation state system. They did not raise their vision to the construction of a new and different world order in which all people can share and in which each people’s security can be a concern of all.
Then, in the first year of the second Bush’s presidency, 9/ll happened. The United States establishment reacted like a stuck pig. It looked at the world with new and knowing eyes. There’s a power vacuum out there, they said with feeling. In our far-flung presence everywhere in the world we are a target everywhere, we are vulnerable. We must go forth to protect ourselves- –everywhere. If we do not pacify the situation, someone else will pacify it, someone probably who hates us. Some other force will intervene and we will be caught with no recourse and deprived of the resources we must have. In this they behaved just like rulers of nations and kingdoms of yore, following in their footsteps, repeating the past, partly because they do not know how else to behave.

It is a no-win struggle they are embarked upon. But because it is not rational does not mean it will not be undertaken. Nor does it mean that the people of the United States will not embrace it. There is a certain terrible logic to it. It’s an old, old logic. Conquer or be conquered. Get in there first, or you will be last. Get control of the resources you need, especially the energy resources, or you will be shut out in the cold. That is the logic of The Project for a New American Century. It is -- given the condition of things today and given the models of the past -- a plausible logic.

The terrible tragedy is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. In objective terms, humankind has reached a point of overwhelming need for effective world governance. Given the great surge of globalization and the murderous subtlety of weapons of mass destruction, only world governance is a truly plausible answer. But it must be a governance in which all people’s security is equally honored and in which power is shared from top to bottom. The United States, if it had wise leadership, could help lead the world in that direction -- and help itself mightily doing it.

Falling back on the logic and psychology of a nation-at-bay is doomed. The people of this great land are doomed to take on the strength-sapping burden of supporting endless skirmishes, battles and wars to achieve and maintain an unstable and unworkable peace in the world. They are doomed to having more and more of their people impoverished and oppressed. They are doomed to having to renege more and more on the American dream, to put aside their vaunted liberties in a hopeless quest for security nation-state style in a world in which the nation-state system is obsolete and unworkable.

The Absence of a Different Vision with Clout Behind It
The second factor that makes it possible for Bush’s vision to succeed with the American people is the absence of a serious and credible force in American society and politics that can counter this vision and offer a better vision and a better way forward.
One might have expected that the Democratic Party should or could have been such a force. But it is not, nor has it ever been. In the long reach of the decades going back to their beginnings, the Democratic Party has always taken a firm, often aggressive, nationalist position in foreign affairs. There have been exceptions like Eleanor Roosevelt who saw beyond national self-interest to self-interest in multilateral worldwide security. But she was put on a pedestal and not listened to. Nor has Jimmy Carter been listened to, who has been described as “the best ex-president the United States has ever had”, and has carried on in the manner of Eleanor Roosevelt since he left the White House.

It was bemusing and predictable to hear what the leading Democratic aspirants for the presidency had to say when they announced their campaigns in early January 2003. With the subsequent exception of Kucinich, which I will note just below, all took an approach that failed to close with the issues or with the fundamental choice facing the people of the United States. In appropriate partisan rhetoric, they were critical of Bush, but none faulted him on his basic policy on terrorism or on his aggressive and imperialist stance in the world. They criticized him for inefficiencies in the conduct of the war on terrorism at home and abroad; and they chided him for not being savvier in dealing with allies. But on the critical matter of the promulgation and deploying of American military power in the world they were silent, a silence that reflects acquiescence. Indeed, one of their number, Senator Lieberman, the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000, sounds even more bellicose than Bush.
The Democratic candidates also attacked Bush for not dealing with the economic slow-down and for his lack of attention to issues of social justice, homelessness, poverty, and environmental degradation. Presumably their thinking is still rooted in the belief that our country can do both, both guns and butter. In this, they are at cross-purposes with themselves and with the tide of history. They buy into the premise of American military and diplomatic supremacy. On that titanic issue they are a me-too voice in foreign affairs. Their hopes for economic, social, and environmental reconstruction and justice at home sound merely like hopes, if not fantasies, given the scale of military might that the policy of world pre-eminence requires. The military side of things gobbles up most of the available money and resources and leaves a diminishing number of crumbs for other things. The Democratic Party is stuck in a dilemma of their own making. They don’t have a vision for America and the world -- of America in the world -- to counter the alluring vision of America the mighty, America the pre-eminent, the bringer of order to all. They will no doubt replace the Republicans in the White House at some point, maybe as soon as 2004, but they will not change the fundamental policy that dooms America.
A remote exception would be a successful campaign for President by Senator Kucinich of Ohio. In the past several months, he has excoriated Bush’s imperialist policies, Bush’s attack on civil liberties at home, and his willingness to sacrifice the livelihood of scores of millions of American citizens on the altar of unending military engagements abroad. Kucinich sees the vital connection between impoverishment at home and this drive to conquer abroad. However, the possibility of him actually winning the Democratic nomination is so remote that both he and the country would be far better off if he started thinking outside the box altogether and joined the Green Party.

The Peace Movement
Another force that might be thought able to offer a different vision is the American Peace Movement. It offers resistance to war and may temper the more boisterous and aggressive behavior of the U.S. government. Their focus on peace is plausible on the surface. But it is full of ambiguity. To be for peace in the face of a turbulent and chaotic world, a world in which the old organizing principles of the national state system are not working, and to insist that in the face of this the United States must act always for peace above all begs the question of what is the United States to do about its own security; and what is the United States to do in its inherited position as a super-power looked to by weaker nations in the world for support in their bid for security. The peace movement’s slogan of choice seems to be “U.S. Out of . . . (everywhere!)”
The peace movement might/could do some serious re-thinking. Wouldn’t the peace movement make more headway if they made security the number one priority for the foundation of peace: physical security, energy security, economic security, and environmental security. And along with that, to insist on the obvious, that security in today’s post-nation-state world is indivisible. This is the lesson that should have been learned from 9/11, but wasn’t, either by Bush, or by the Democrats. And the Peace Movement does not see it very clearly. It spends a lot of time protesting what the government does, it spends a lot of time and energy moralizing about presumed perfidious behavior and conspiracies committed by the government. But how about figuring out better answers to the problems inherent in the twilight of the nation-state system than the one which the authors of The Project for the New American Century are promulgating? It might be said of the latter that at least they have located the problem. Has the peace movement? Often it seems to be saying that if only, if only, they can reach the American people with “the truth” about what our government is “really” doing, then people will act to change things. But the people who produce documents like “The Project for the New American Century” are ahead of them on this. They turn these charges right around and say that of course we are doing what may seem shocking and terrible to peace-niks (their phrase), we are bombing, we are manipulating, we are taking things into our own hands, regrettably of course in many cases, but it is for your security, your livelihood -- and in fact it is for the good of the world. We have a destiny to fulfill. We are America and we have been called to this high purpose to provide peace and security throughout the world.

This brings the discussion down to the real limitation of the American peace movement. It is not a political force. It stands as it were on the sidelines of the power struggle uttering moral judgments. This has a certain restraining influence, but a weak one. Of itself it is ineffectual. Perhaps in concert with an avowedly political force, one that contested for office, power, and policy- making, the peace movement would make a serious contribution to the building of a different vision and a different policy than that pursued by Bush and his people.

The Green Party
Can the Green Party be such a political force? They are on the right track in so far as they have opted to become a serious, credible political party and not another Non-governmental Organization (NGO). However, so far, it has tended to follow in the wake of the Peace Movement on the big issues of war and peace. This follower-relationship will have to be reversed if a persuasive case can be made to the American people for a different vision and a different policy. An indication that the Green Party is finding its own voice on war and peace was the Green Party’s official response to Bush’s State of the Union address January 28, 2003. Natalie Lee Johnson, a black member of the Minneapolis City Council and member of the Minnesota Green Party, delivered it. Her speech was sprinkled with statements like “We offer the only national security policy that works, a policy whose goal is peace, not war”; “Bush promised a policy of war [in his address], a war on minorities, a war on the most vulnerable, a war on regular working people – the Green Party offers an alternative of peace”; “Bush . . . together with a weak and compliant Democratic Party in Congress, is threatening American interests”; “Peace is Patriotic!” “The hold of the oil companies on Congress and the White house [must be broken] – we have the technical know-how to replace oil and coal with renewable energy;” “We must be consistent in our support for democracy abroad.” She unites themes of security, our (true) interest, protection of minorities, the affirmation of diversity and democracy at home and abroad, and patriotism with peace. With savvy and eloquent leadership of this kind, the Green Party may be on the road to finding language that can connect with the American people in a serious and credible way on issues of war and peace.

By daring to become a political party, the Greens have a chance to put forth a vision of the indivisibility of security for all peoples in the world, including the people of the United States; and to articulate a policy based on that vision. Such a vision and such a policy is central to all policy making in every field in the same way that the vision of World Empire is central. The Green Party thus has a chance to pose a comprehensive program for the American people, affecting all issues domestic and foreign, to contest with the world empire posture and message of the Bush administration -- with which the Democratic Party is compliant. The Green Party has the potential to be the second party in the United States, not the third. This puts them in a position similar to that faced by Roosevelt and Lincoln in their times. The stakes are very high.

The Green Party is not alone. It is part of a wider movement for democracy. A significant element in the overall movement for more democracy, both in the United States and in many other countries, is Direct Democracy. Many states in the United States have an Initiative and Referendum process whereby the people make their own laws and establish policies unfiltered by political parties or representative institutions. Creative spirits are now building on these efforts to urge the adoption of a national referendum process. The breakthroughs in cyberspace technology and the consequent proliferation of email capability make this approach both attractive and arguably feasible. The GHQ is offering one of its regular Columns to help explain and develop Democracy Unbound!
Direct Democracy goes hand in hand with a vital and vigorous political party. They should be seen as complementing each other, just as the Peace Movement can complement both. But for all three, it is utterly crucial to locate the problem of peace and war in the twilight of the nation-state system.

John Rensenbrink is Co-Editor of Green Horizon Quarterly. He is one of the founders of the Green Party, nationally and in his home state of Maine. He is author of “Against All Odds, the Green Transformation of American Politics,” and is Professor Emeritus of Government at Bowdoin College. He currently serves as one of the Maine Green Independent Party’s two representatives to the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States as well as one of the latter’s two representatives to the Global Green Network.