Foreign Policy and American Concerns

As President Obama begins his presidency, most Americans are understandably focused on the economic crisis. This has been the case for months now; during the latter parts of the presidential campaign the domestic economy became the main talking point for both candidates. A large majority of President Obama's policy speeches and public statements have been devoted to the subject, and since the inauguration he has spent much of his time crafting a stimulus bill with Congress. This is not to say he is ignoring everything else, (he has issued several executive orders) but merely to point out that the dominant narratives of the country over the last few months, including the early days of his presidency, have been the problems facing the U.S. economy.

While this is not surprising in itself, it strikes a sharp contrast to America since 9/11. After the terrorist attacks, the media coverage and public dialogue became mainly concentrated on foreign policy issues. The quest to discover the perpetrators of the attacks led to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. In 2002 there was the run up to the Iraq War followed by the invasion itself, and in the years immediately following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime America was occupied by the occupation and subsequent civil war. Pundits watching the massacre of Republicans at the polls in 2006 interpreted it (correctly) as anger at the failures in Iraq. Looking back, 2007 was the last year when foreign policy concerns were still a dominant concern for the administration and many Americans in general. Nuclear proliferation became a hot topic, with North Korea and Iran keeping American’s focus, at least to some extent, on foreign policy issues. Iran in particular was concerning to some, with a flurry of rumors of invasion, air strikes, or a collaborative U.S.-Israeli assault of some form. The last year has seen all of this fade as an issue, as the economic crisis, oil and food spikes, house prices downward spirals, and a myriad of other domestic concerns took center stage.

Perhaps it is too simplistic to link this shift in focus only to the state of the economy. The success of the surge and the alliances the U.S. military forged with Iraqi Sunnis has dropped the monthly death tolls to fractions of their level in the year prior to the 2006 election, and as Iraq appears to stabilize somewhat the anger and confusion that Americans felt is fading. The Bush administration’s ability to control the narrative and to frame two successive elections and countless policy decisions as black and white issues concerning the immediate safety of Americans eventually appeared self-serving or inadequate to many people. As 9/11 faded into memory, Americans slowly became less concerned with the lurking specter of more attacks, and since the recession this concern has faded even quicker.

In many way, this is a return to post Cold War norms. Throughout the 1990's, large majorities of Americans stated that the domestic policy should be the primary focus of the president, reaching as high as 86% in January 1997, in a poll done by Pew Research. This same poll saw that number drop to around 50% after 9/11, (and even lower among Republicans, with a large majority saying the foreign policy was a bigger concern) where it remained through the January, 2008 poll. In this January's results the number has risen dramatically, to 71%, more in line with their pre-9/11 numbers.

While it makes sense that dominant narratives in America shift back and forth from domestic to foreign concerns depending on events, it is noteworthy how quickly foreign policy has dropped down the list of concerns for many Americans, considering the number of challenges facing the U.S. abroad. The hundreds of thousands of U.S. military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan get barely a mention on the news these days, and their deaths receive a mere paragraph in the newspapers. In the coming days and months, as President Obama deploys around another 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, slowly withdraws from Iraq, diplomatically engages with Iran, and attempts to intervene successfully in a variety of other crises across the globe, it is worth considering how little most Americans are paying attention to any problems outside their borders. George Bush’s legacy will forever be intertwined with Iraq, but it appears that the early years of the Obama administration will be largely judged on his domestic policies.

Thoughts On The Inauguration Speech of Barack Obama

From the beginning President Obama has set an ambitious agenda, and his inaugural address continued in that same vein. In the months since his election, as the economy continued to worsen and the world stumbled from one crisis to the next, I and many others wondered how many of his campaign promises he would backtrack on, how many of his grand ideas he would put off. He addressed me and other doubters quite clearly, saying that "...there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans." He then answered our doubts, and laid out anew his plans for moving the country forward, "The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its costs. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." This is an ambitious domestic agenda for anyone, never mind a young, just-elected president in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

On foreign policy too he laid out an impressive plan, promising to undo many of George Bush's clearest missteps. He unequivocally stated his opposition to the policies of torture and secret detainment that have cost the United States so much in public standing throughout the world, saying that "...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," and hearkening back to the Constitution drafted by the founders, as one which would "...assure the rule of law and the rights of man." He signaled his intention to shift the military focus of the war on terror, stating that "...we'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan." He mentioned his intention to oppose nuclear proliferation, and rebuked those countries that "...seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West." While he gave notice that he will lead America in a more multilateral direction, and seek to build alliances with countries across the globe, he also addressed those who questioned America's place in the global hierarchy after the failures of the last eight years, forcefully stating that "...we are ready to lead once more."

While he told the world that America will not apologize for its way of life, he told Americans that this way of life may need to change in the years ahead. He warned those who would turn to isolationist or protectionist policies that , "...we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect."

In the economic sphere, he again implicitly rebuked his predecessor, saying that recession was the partly the "...consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some." To those who only blame greedy bankers while reneging on responsibility themselves he warned that it is also the result of "...our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

He cut through the stale debate over the market system, explaining that "...the question before us (is not) whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched." He warned however, that "...without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control," something evident to everyone over the preceding months. Similarly, he stated that it is not "...whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." He has promised to improve efficiency, cut useless programs, reform the military procurement process, and improve the transparency of how taxpayer money is spent, themes which shined through clearly in his speech.

Barack Obama swore his oath on President Lincoln's Bible, and invoked George Washington as an inspiration during his speech. He told Americans that time were tough and would continue to be so for a while, but that the turning point was now, and he would not falter in making the hard decisions necessary to improve the United States at home and abroad. It was an ambitious speech, and it set out an ambitious agenda. Only time will tell if his policies match his rhetoric, but if he keeps the promises made in his address, America and the world will have much to be thankful for in the coming years.

Race Construction and Colonial Lingerings

Race has long been used as an important tool of identification to differentiate between classes of people. Many societies in human history, particularly since the onset of science as an explanatory tool, have used racial differences to divide resources and power. Specifically, “the West” used this tool when they colonized various countries. Although the specific organizational methods which were used varied, all relied upon a contrast of the white man as superior, and the native as inferior. This essay will examine that relationship, and look at the various ways the West used racial constructions of difference as a tool to maintain dominance over the native populations, both during and after colonization. It will examine the way this construction has impacted current issues of race in society.

When race is used as a tool to differentiate between certain groups of people, it is based on the premise that there is a biological difference between the different races. Within this construction is an inherent justification of racism. Howard Winant argues that this construction arose with modernity and the beginnings of the nation-state. As the Enlightenment understandings of the world grew in importance throughout Europe, there was a preoccupation with understanding everything scientifically. The obvious differences in appearance between white Europeans and black Africans, Asians, or Latin Americans was explained by various scientists who measured and theorized about the various ways in which the Europeans were biologically unique and differentiated from these other races. However, Winant explains that attempted differentiation of human beings by phenotype as a way to show inherent difference does not stand up to close scrutiny. He writes, “There is no biological basis for distinguishing human groups along the lines of race, and the sociohistorical categories employed to differentiate among these groups reveal themselves, upon serious examination, to be imprecise if not completely arbitrary.”[1]

The underlying rationale behind differentiating by race was never a purely scientific pursuit, however. It was linked with the beginning of colonization, and a scientific justification was found for the brutal practices which the colonists engaged in. Thus the white man was not just superior because he benefited from a more advanced cultural background, but because he was physically superior. As Nancy Stepan explains, “… science provided the ontological grounding for political argument about the differential treatment of human groups.[2] This “scientific racism” was used by the white colonizers as a rationale to explain why slavery and domination was not just alright, but even beneficial to those subjugated. It provided a way for them to be taken care of and to escape the savagery of their cultural practices lifestyle, which was caused by their racial inferiority. Stepan goes on to explain that science in general is historically understood through the lens of normalcy being the white man, and the “other” being those who differentiate from this (whether it is gender or racial difference). The “other” is always alien and inferior, furthering the inherent justification of dominance by the white man.

In colonial Rwanda, Belgium overseers used a racial hierarchy to differentiate Rwandans. They were divided between two different ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi. The Tutsi were identified as distant descendants of the Biblical Ham (Noah’s son). This explained their taller height and more European facial features, and thus their natural right, as being closer to white, to be higher on the racial hierarchy than the Hutu. As this scientifically based system did not accept that very few Hutu and Tutsi actually resembled their appropriate racial phenotype, and the authorities could often not differentiate between the two, the Belgiums instituted a system in the 1930’s whereby every Rwandan would declare their ethnic group and be given a card with their “racial’ identification on it. This new and inflexible system gradually radicalized the two groups; the Tutsi increasingly emphasized their superiority, while the Hutu became increasingly solidaristic. This racialization of Rwandan society marked the first time that each ethnic group became static, and altered what had been a system of social mobility to one of racial subjugation. Thus this scientific construction, which was based on the white man as inherently superior, would eventually lead to decades of societal unrest and eventual the genocide of 1994, in which 800,000 Rwandans were killed.[3]

There are many other examples where racial construction and its legacies can be seen in practice. Anthony Marx writes of three of them; Brazil, the U.S., and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are marked by European colonization (the U.S. is to, but the racial issue being examined here is not between the colonized group and the colonizer), and the interaction between the native and colonized population. The U.S. and Brazil are marked by slavery, and the force migration of a subjugated population. All three of these countries have legacies of racial inequality, and all of them have been wrestling with these issues continuously since they appeared. Even today, all three have significant social and economic inequalities between white and black populations. In each, “the West” has used racial construction to differentiate between groups of people and to maintain dominance.[4]

Both the United States and South Africa relied on racial differentiation in order to create a nation and recover from conflict between elites. For South Africa, the conflict between British and Afrikaner threatened the stability of the state. By transforming this anger against each other into anger against the black population, and by defining each as a white citizen in opposition with the black “other,” it created a nation of South Africa built upon the exclusion of blacks. Similarly in America, where the end of the Civil War was marked by a willingness of Northern elites to abandon their black compatriots who had fought beside them, in order to appease the Southern whites and bring them into the process of rebuilding a sense of nation, there is once again an opposition to the black “other.” Thus in both of these states a legal segregation was imposed as a means of nation building.

Conversely, in Brazil, this use of race to unify by exclusion did not happen. It has attempted to form a national identity based on assimilation, and a sense of continuity with the past, irrespective of race. Historically, racism in Brazil is informal as opposed to the strict segregation of apartheid and Jim Crow. Brazil did not experience the intra-white conflict of the other two states, what conflicts it did experience were based on fears of slave revolts. The imperative of nation-building in Brazil was thus focused on appeasing the Afro-Brazilian population, not on moderating intra-white conflicts, and so the nation which emerged was based on the myth of an inclusive democracy which did not base policy on skin color, and in which belonging to the Brazilian nation was the most important identity structure.

Marx argues that all of these states remain racially unequal, and he worries that South Africa and the U.S. are beginning to follow Brazil’s pattern where an official myth of equality obscures the issues of inequality which remain. The inequality which does exist in today’s society is often dismissed as being the fault of the oppressed for not actively joining in this new racially inclusive society. Even if the oppressed race does attempt to join in the new society, they often find it is at the expense of their own cultural identity, and that they may remain second-class citizens; the case of North Africans in France is a salient example.

Cultural identity is often seen as different from racial identity, and thus discrimination on the basis of culture is not seen as racism. Tariq Modood challenges that interpretation, and argues that racism can be culturally constructed as well as simply a product of “color.” He explains that color racism has no scientific basis anymore, as the earlier construction of human beings as having innate differences in intelligence and ability based merely on their race have been disproved. Specifically, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, there has been a focus on disproving that differences between people are racially based, and that there is any such thing as a master race. However, as racism remains, and is still a tool used by the dominant members of society to express their disdain and disapproval of the “other,” an attempt must be made to look at culture as a reason. Thus definition relies on racism as being people expressing their contempt at anything other than the civilized norm, which is always defined as a white male (which typically has aspects of Christianity intertwined with it). He explains that Muslim Pakistanis in contemporary Britain are viewed as racially inferior not because (or not just because) they are a different color, but because they are viewed as culturally inferior. Pakistanis are seen as representing a different and alien culture, with values that clash with the dominant culture. This form of racism is strongest against groups which offer a positive alternative cultural viewpoint to the dominant culture.[5]

Modood asserts that in the future, as science continues to disprove that race constitutes any biological difference between people, cultural racism could become the dominant form of racism, as people seek to maintain power against rival ideologies or ideas, and maintain their superior position vis-à-vis the “other.” Another option exists too, one which none of the theorists read so far have mentioned. As memories of the Holocaust slowly fade from societal conscious, at least as a dominant trend shaping scientific choices of study, people will begin to once again seek differences between groups based on biology. What if they find them? The idea that evolution may have impacted different geographical groups differently based on their specific regional pressures is not a new or revolutionary one. But biology is certainly more advanced today than it was the last time racial difference was a popular topic of study, and scientists have certainly become more objective in their methodology (although one can doubt where true impartiality can ever be reached.)

Indeed, a study suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may be more intelligent than the general population, and that this is a result of their long history of being persecuted. Those who were extremely intelligent were more likely to rise to the top of their fields and to escape various forms of persecution, and thus were more likely to have children; Ashkenazi also commonly intra-marry within their own group. The study suggests that Ashkenazi who were successful were disproportionately likely to have a certain mutated gene, and theorizes that this mutation increases their innate intelligence.[6] Regardless of the truth behind this, as science advances it is reasonable to assume that more and more correlations between genetic mutations and physical abilities and traits will be discovered, and that these will likely be explained by pointing out racial differences. This raises important questions about humanity, and whether we share a commonality which grants us the right to equal recognition as human within our diverse differences, differences which people will continue to attempt to exploit. Whether cultural racism becomes the dominant form of discriminatory expression or color racism enjoys a biological renaissance, racism will remain, and attempts to understand its specific manifestations are as important as ever.

[1] Howard Winant, “Race and Race Theory,” Annual Review of Sociology. 26:169–85. 2000. Pg.172.
[2] Nancy Leys Stepan, “Race, Gender, Science, and Citizenship.” Gender and History. 10: 26-52. April 1998. Pg. 32.
[3] Mahmood Mamdani. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide
in Rwanda. Kampala: Fountain, 2002.
[4] Anthony Marx. Making Race and Nation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[5] Tariq Modood. Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity, and Muslims in Britain. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
[6] “Natural genius?,” The Economist, June 2nd, 2005.