Americans are polled every month from the non-partisan polling group, Gallup,
on what they think the most important issues facing the country are. With usual
consistency the number one issue is the economy and trailing closely behind it
is, national security. Often the three schools of International Relations clash
on their views of national security and how to implement it. Realism believes
that military security of the state’s power is what is most important.
Liberalism believes the security can be found through exchange and rationality
to lead to certain ends. Lastly, Constructivism believes that through identities
and norms, security can be created by similar communities. I believe that
American Foreign policy has been driven by constructivist views and that
sometimes it’s not always the best solution.
The idea that “democracy”
is the best form of government has been pushed by the West; and it is because of
the standards we have created, known as constructivist “norms”. These norms are
the guiding principles of the Western Community. Americans in particular do not
second guess the freedoms of speech, due process, and our civil rights; it is a
norm and the only concept our 21st century America has experienced
domestically. In American history, our constructivist foreign policy and
security has been based off of the shared interests of other nations and our
democratic views. Our consistent allies have been with nations in Eastern
Europe for instance, Great Britain and France because they hold the same
fundamental values as America: democracy. In the first and second World Wars,
America had allied with Great Britain and France because of our democratic and peace views. But what
about the countries that don’t have a similar view of democracy? What about the
recent actions taken by Russia and responses of the rest of the western
community?
Russia was brought
into the Western community after World War II when democracy was introduced
into their fragile governmental system. When Russia was converted by the West
we considered them part of “us” and “a great power”— but what happens to the
nations not included in this system?
Those not included became what we call “others”. Recently the actions
Russia has perpetuated on Ukraine has called onto the West to condemn Russia.
Russian rebels has forwarded expansionist views on to the Ukraine peninsula called
Crimea; forced expansion is considered un-democratic by Western Allies. Soon
afterward, the West began putting sanctions on Russia including the American
sanction from the Treasury Department on Russian banks and the energy sector. These
actions taken by the West constitute as “othering” – distancing Russia’s
actions from the West and trying to use hard power of sanctions to dry them out
into releasing Crimea from rebel force. This “othering” is dangerous and has
been witnessed in the wars previously mentioned. Totalitarian nations such as
Germany began expanding in Europe during the 1930s, and the surrounding
democratic nations took alliance to fight against these opposing principles. By
creating this “othering” the democratic and totalitarian nations became hostile
and came to head; World War II.
The problem with “othering”
Russia is that it is now a “great power”. This current foreign policy is far
different from any previous war, allied action against a powerful and combustible
Russia in combat can lead to an equally devastating war as the previous ones. Realists
would oppose the small build-up of sanctions against Russia; they would prefer
stronger military action immediately to balance the power and prevent Russia’s
escalation. Liberalists would try to use the institutions such as the UN or WTO
to remove the sanctions and issue diplomacy talks. Neither of the three options
sound completely convincing with the current political climate; but which one
seems more dangerous? I think constructivist "othering" does; it has the power to
grow resentment, prolonged military and economic struggles, and forces the
perspective of always having to have an enemy.
