Este es un artículo de mi autoria. Me parece que es interesante por la crítica en torno a la concepción hegeliana de la historia de Fukuyama. Me permití agregar todas las citas, notas al pie y la bibliografía en caso de que alguien quiera profundizar más en el tema.
US Political Thought at the End of the Cold War
When the first colonies were established in the American territory, the basic definitions of the new country came along with the settlers. These concepts are the founding principles of today’s US domestic and foreign policy. The very first values of the new colonies were conceived under what Morris Berman calls “the rejection of something else” (Berman, 2007 p. 1). This means that these values intended not to be the same as those from Great Britain. In this sense, many new institutions were born under what is called the “American exceptionalism”, meaning that the new colonies were based upon liberty, democracy, equality before law, private property, institutionalism, and eventually, with the independence of Great Britain, constitutionalism. The new settlers thought that these values were essentially different from those in Europe, and that this would lead their nation to have more free individual development.
American exceptionalism works as the inner machinery of today’s world hegemonic power. For us to understand it better, it is important to establish two levels of analysis. The first one is rhetoric. This is the most important element in politics because, by definition, it does not need any other proof than that of believing. Rhetoric is used by the American government to tackle two different entities: the voters and the international system. For the voters, this discourse is centered on the founding values of the nation, trust in the government, and religion. Most of Americans still believe what John Winthrop said back in 1630 “we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill” (Berman, 2007 p. 8). This concept embodies a belief and a judgment of what the government should do regarding foreign policy, and thus legitimizing its activities. Moreover, as Berman takes from Robert Bellah, this has been the basis for a “civil religion” (Berman, 2007 p. 6). This conception has its origin in the idea that America should be “the Israel of our time” (Berman, 2007 p. 7), and the thought that, by means of Manifest Destiny, America should democratize the world. As we note, many of the Americans base their votes on this rhetorical discourse. For the international system, rhetoric is linked to the impression that America should be the Good Samaritan of the world, by bringing democracy to every country on the globe.
The second level of analysis is realism. This is a very important concept because it provides a strong Machiavellian sense between rhetoric and reality. The US dominated the international arena during the 20th century as Henry Luce notes in his writings[1]. He states that it has become the most powerful nation by the end of the Cold War, and certainly it has been the most controversial. For the American power elite, as Mills states, the distinction between the rhetorical argument of spreading democracy for the sake of peace and freedom, and the reality of increasing profit and power is very clear[2]. Manifest Destiny is used only as a pretext for their economic expansion. In this sense, and essentially different from the conception of Fukuyama’s Hegelian dialectic, the US (thesis) needs to find enemies (antithesis) in order to continue improving their economy (unilateral synthesis)[3]. These enemies are only found by opposing to their economic and political regimes, as Lorenz Baritz indicates (Berman, 2007 p. 8).
1989 and the Transition Years
After the Berlin Wall fell apart and the USSR disappeared from the international arena as the Soviet threat to the US, America has become the most powerful country in the world. As the new hegemonic power, two main scholars have analyzed the transition from the bipolar era to the unipolar one. First, Fukuyama’s Hegelian perception of history is that during the Cold War there was an antagonism between the capitalist block (thesis) and the Soviet bloc (antithesis). This gave birth to a new ultimate stage of world politics in the post-Cold War era called “Western Liberal Democracy” (synthesis). Nonetheless this conception is essentially wrong. Hegel’s perception of dialectic has to do with syncretism, i.e. two opposing entities converge into a more sophisticated entity called synthesis. This does not happen in the post-Cold War era because the thesis took over the antithesis completely, leaving no space for syncretism at any level (ideology, politics, economy, military, and social), and regarding all soviet-communist values as a complete failure.
Second, Samuel Huntington, a well-known and respected scholar just as Fukuyama, has also tried to explain and maintain US hegemony in the new century. He has been criticized for his lack of knowledge in the definition of the world’s dominant cultures, and his combination of religion and culture within the same category. However, his concept of US domination is more realistic than the proposal of Fukuyama’s End of History. It is more realistic because he does not find any synchronic element with other cultures. On the contrary, he states that the US is permanently threatened by all other different religions and countries, most especially Islam. Furthermore, Huntington realizes that the US has to find a dialectical path in order to keep the economic and political control over the world. This means that the US has to find new enemies in order to survive. His thesis is completely anti-democratic, and might be confusing for those who mix rhetoric with reality. The Italian philosopher, and specialist on democracy, Norberto Bobbio, concurs with Mill’s argument that democracy and technocracy (elite government) are antithetical (Bobbio, 1984 p. 41). In the “Power Elite”, Mills states that the power elite can be understood by sets of structural trends: “The military capitalism of private corporate exists in a weakened and formal democratic system containing a military order already quite political in outlook and demeanor” (Mills, 1956 p. 276). The US might be a bit democratic regarding domestic issues, but in the external sector it is clear that they have no commitments, other than economic.
The Rise of US Hegemony and the Post-Cold War
Charles Krauthammer was one of the first scholars to state that the post-Cold War was a “unipolar moment”. He described the international system as controlled under the American leadership, and that no other country represented a threat for the US. His argumentation has set the basis for the 21st century American foreign policy. He notes that new, more aggressive, small armed nations will emerge as a threat to the US (Ferguson, 1990/91 p.1). This has been the groundwork for the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine, by which any suspicious State will be regarded as an enemy under Bush’s War on Terror. During this period of unipolarity, the US has tried to find allies that legitimize their military actions. However, whenever there is a lack of consensus, the US ignores this and strikes e.g. the Iraq invasion of 2003. This behavior has had an impact on scholars like Niall Ferguson, who considers the US not to be a Hegemony, but rather an Empire. He says that the term “Empire” is normally related to abuse, and permanent military occupation (Ferguson, 2003 p. 1). Of course, the US government does not appreciate the expression, because it is opposed to the rhetoric of the Good Samaritan of the world. For Ferguson, the US is an Empire that pursues its own interests through military, economic, political, social and cultural influence. Here, the most important concept is violence, for this is required to keep their economic influence in those places that represent an opposing ideology to liberalism.
Sources:
Berman, Morris. «Locating the Enemy: Myth vs. Reality in U.S. Foreign Policy.» The Grace A. Tanner Lecture in Human Values. Utah: Souther Utah University, 2007.
Bobbio, Norberto. «El futuro de la democracia. » Turin: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1984.
Ferguson, Niall. «Hegemony or Empire?» Foreign Affairs (2003).
Fukuyama, Francis. «The End of History?» The National Interest (1989).
Huntington, Samuel. «The Hispanic Challenge.» March 2004. Foreign Policy. September 20, 2008
Krauthammer, Charles. «The Unipolar Moment.» Foreign Affairs (1990/90).
Luce, Henry. «The American Century.» LIFE (1941).
Wright Mills, C. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford, 1956.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario