The Roots Of Non-Interventionism
John Schwenkler and Clark Stooksbury point to this Bill Kauffman column on the importance of identification with and loyalty to place, and he makes many of the points that need to be made, especially with respect to the policy implications of a rootless and boundless internationalism. The connection between a lack of local horizons that define a person and the lack of any sense of limits on what constitutes national interest is an important one. Unable to mind their own business, because they do not really have their own business, rootless people seem to find meaning in supporting projects everywhere and anywhere. As I and Brendan O’Neill have argued before, Obama’s interventionist vision is on an unprecedented scale, and Mr. Kauffman agrees:
Obama’s limitless internationalism is encapsulated in his statement that “When poor villagers in Indonesia have no choice but to send chickens to market infected with avian flu, it cannot be seen as a distant concern.” This is, quite possibly, the most expansive definition ever essayed of the American national interest. It is a license for endless interventions in the affairs of other nations. It is a recipe for blundering into numberless wars-which will be fought, disproportionately, by those God & Guns small-town Americans evidently despised or pitied by Mr. Obama.
Kauffman advances the critique, not just of Obama, but of all three interventionist candidates by linking this endless international ambition to a lack of rootedness at home. All the more reason why I think it is imperative to cultivate a culture that stresses loyalty to place, because without that it is extremely difficult to develop a political movement dedicated to resisting intervention.
10 Responses to “The Roots Of Non-Interventionism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Whatever the merits of the basic argument being made, I don’t understand the use of bird flu in Indonesia as the canonical example of Obama’s desire for unwarranted meddling in things that aren’t our concern. Actions (or inactions) by other countries can increase the chance of a pandemic-causing variant of the virus and a pandemic is not going to be confined to that country. There were cases of SARS in the US, for example.
What’s more, it’s not like concern about bird flu in Indonesia (or other places) is something new that Obama is proposing. We do a lot now to help other countries deal with this problem.
“When poor villagers in Indonesia have no choice but to send chickens to market infected with avian flu, it cannot be seen as a distant concern.â€
Why do they have no choice? Because there is something wrong with their society, government, or political economic structures. So what are we supposed to do then? Force regime change? Demand that they do what we say or suffer sanctions or worse? And, how many chickens do we really get from Indonesia?
There were SARS cases in the U.S., but the SARS threat was vastly exaggerated. I have no problem with an argument for taking precautions about importing poultry from places with avian flu outbreaks, and I could possibly see some logic in assisting other countries with public health matters such as these, but they are by definition “distant concerns.” Those who can’t see that they are distant concerns have a very strange idea of what is near and what is far.
The point, which I think Ted has driven home, is that we cannot start making the chickens of poor villagers in Indonesia our business (partly because it is very debatable that we are even relying on Indonesian chickens for anything that comes into our country) unless we are going to make almost *everything* in Indonesian society our business.
Incidentally, I do find it interesting that the candidate his supporters want to talk up as the natural internationalist and man of the world is at the same time someone whose internationalism seems premised on casting foreign places as the source of innumerable threats. Typically, these threats are exaggerated to justify our involvement in addressing this or that “crisis” Supposedly, portraying foreign lands as the source of many dangers is what “nativists” and “xenophobes” do, but perhaps they are too busy clinging to their rifles at church.
The “how many chickens do we import from Indonesia” argument is of marginal relevance to the point you’re trying to make (hint: How did SARS spread to other countries? It wasn’t via chickens.). Besides, the US already bans import of unprocessed chickens from Indonesia (and other countries with H5N1 in domestic poultry).
By “distant concern”, I assumed Obama meant something on the order of “unimportant” or “something we shouldn’t be concerned about”, as opposed to making an (incorrect) statement about physical geography. Others’ readings may be different, I suppose.
The alternative to tedschan’s “regime change” or “sanctions or worse” is money, which Indonesia (like pretty much everyone else) would like the US to give to them. You can argue about whether we should give them money or how much, especially given that Indonesia obviously already has large incentives to prevent an outbreak of pandemic bird flu from originating on its soil. However, you can’t really argue that Obama is proposing to “start making the chickens of poor villagers in Indonesia our business”, because that particular rubicon has already been crossed. See:
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/home/News/news_items/avian_influenza.html
for a partial list of the foreign aid that we’ve already given out for fighting bird flu. Included in some of these grants is money to Indonesia for “agricultural response”, which includes “culling and vaccination”, presumably of those same chickens that Obama shouldn’t start meddling with.
Consider for a moment that when Obama says that our interests are linked to those of chicken farmers in Indonesia, he was not suggesting we defend those interests with our military, but perhaps, just maybe, with peaceful diplomatic and economic agreements between nations.
Of course, that would undermine the argument that Obama is ready to engage in military interventions at the drop of a hat, or a chicken, as the case may be. This example just makes clear how absurd the entire criticism of Obama (and others like him) as being a gung-ho military interventionist is. He’s clearly advocating a strong network of international relationships, not an endless series of military debacles.
Ratufa:
see Mr. Larison’s post from 2007:
http://larison.org/2007/04/24/obamas-vision-hegemony-minus-torture/
and the original speech by Mr. Obama:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/
He is not using “distant” in the way you think.
However, you can’t really argue that Obama is proposing to “start making the chickens of poor villagers in Indonesia our businessâ€
After you read his speech, maybe you can give your own gloss and explanation for his words:
In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.
Ratufa, looks like the blog is not accepting posts with url–you can find the text of Obama’s speech online, along with Mr. Larison’s post from last year critiquing it.
tedschan,
Maybe you can tell me what Obama meant by “distant concern” if it had nothing to do how much or little we should be caring about those farmers.
One can’t really argue that Obama is proposing to “start making the chickens of poor villagers in Indonesia our business” (emphasis added) because we have already made them our business.
I began my first post with “Whatever the merits of the basic argument being made”, which is to say that I wasn’t trying to make some more general argument about interventionism. For the record, I think that Obama’s “inextricably linked” statement is rather silly if taken to its literal conclusion.
Ratufa–Sorry–you are correct about the way he meant distant, I read your response too quickly.
Nonetheless, giving monetary or material aid out of some sort of benevolence is not the same thing as making something our business.