Natalia Rojas: American Security, "Othering" Russia is Dangerous.

           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 21^st 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.