In a 2008 speech in Berlin, stated that “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the only way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.” It is now 2018. Currently, an increasing number of people in the United States shun globalism in favor of nationalism. These individuals do not view our collective American experience as one that is based on complex interrelated international relationships. Instead, a nationalistic movement has taken hold. An “us vs. them” mentality has developed. On October 22, 2018, this seismic shift on the need for global citizenry was on full display at a campaign rally for Senator Ted Cruz. At this rally, Trump identified himself as “nationalist”. He stated, “globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can’t have that, you know, they have a word, it’s sort of became old fashioned, it’s called a ‘nationalist.’ And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word.” American society is at a crossroad for its identity.
Its decision where it stands in the global community can have longstanding effects. Are we solely proud citizens of the United States? Or are we fellow citizens of the world? Or can we, as Americans, be both? On May 8, 1945, Winston Churchill announced World War 2 had ended. However, the end had come at a high price. Approximately, 6 million people were killed in concentration camps. The international community could not let this type of tragedy ever happen again. So, in response, the legal concept of “Responsibility to Protect” began to develop. This concept was defined by three distinct elements. The first element is the responsibility to prevent violence by addressing root causes of internal conflict. The next element is to responsibility to react to cases of compelling human need with appropriate measures. The last element is the responsibility to rebuild, including reconstruction and reconciliation after military intervention. In 1150, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote “Hell is full of good wishes or desires”. Historically, the Right to Protect (R2P) doctrine originated under the guise of “humanitarian” intervention.
Developed nations saw themselves as defenders of the common good. They believed themselves to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes a moral standard for the global community. Noam Chomsky skillfully articulated this position in his seminal lecture on the subject of R2P at the United Nations General Assembly on July 23, 2009. Professor Chomsky stated, “In 1629, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was granted its Charter by the King, stating that the rescuing the natives from their bitter pagan fate is the principal end of this.” More specifically, he stated that, “there is no difficulty adding similar examples from other great powers in their day in the sun.” The doctrine of R2P has basic elements. However, its noble goals are not clearly defined as an international law. Rather, these ideals simply provide a framework. They are founded in the mutual non-binding and unspoken agreement among nations. These nations are typically ones that would be defined as strong nation(s). This exact point is succinctly summed up in Jackie Safir’s installment of “Ethical Inquiry” in the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life, November 2009. She notes that Belgian, Jean Bricmont, author of Humanitarian Imperialism (2006), argued that “national sovereignty is a partial protection of weak states against strong ones.
Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States to force it to reduce its CO2 emissions because of the catastrophic human consequences that they may have on Bangladesh. The interference is always unilateral”. Unilateralism is one part of the problem of R2P. I believe that unilateralism is a close relative to imperialism. Neither approach has a place in the modern world. Bigger nations should not be able decide the course a smaller nation should take simply based on its size or military might. The right to choose a nation’s lies in the hand of the governed. The governed should consent to intervention or assistance. This determination should not like in the hands of any other nation or group of nations. R2P replaces sovereignty with nation building without the consent of the governed. The United States has a unique place in the R2P debate. The United States is widely considered a superpower. That title comes with great weight and influence on the stage of world affairs. In turn, the words that the leaders of the United States are important. When President Barack Obama speaks, it matters. When President Trump speaks, it matters.
President Trump considers himself a nationalist. In February 2017, he agreed that the label described him in a “true sense”. As such, he equates nationalism with the perseverance of the United States’ sovereignty. In his article, The U.S. Should Reject the U.N. “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, Steven Groves provides the historical basis for this viewpoint. He uses the example of the founding fathers. In his article, Mr. Groves provides that “the government formed by the Founders to safeguard American independence and protect individual rights derives its powers from the consent of the governed, not from any other nation or group of nations.” Since Mr. Trump was elected president of the United States in November of 2016, he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he has the consent of the governed. He believes that he is adhering to the R2P’s first principle to prevent violence by addressing root causes of internal conflict. Mr. Trump believes if he constructs a wall that he is protecting the civilian populations of the United States.
Similarly, when he prevents migrant caravans from entering the United States at the southern border of the United States, Mr. Trump again feels he is concentrating on the primary responsibility of a government. He does not believe that we should interfere in the affairs of foreign nations under most circumstances until we can get our own house in order. In speech to the General Assembly, President Trump told those in attendance that, “We reject the ideology of globalism and embrace the doctrine of patriotism”. In its September 25, 2018, opinion piece, These are risks of Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune, clearly articulate the problem with this approach. It is absolutist. The Board writes, “But the country with the world’s most powerful military and the world’s biggest economy can’t safely ignore. . .the rest of the world.” This leads us to the former president, Barack Obama’s view regarding our place in the global community as it relates to the R2P doctrine. Obama’s globalist views are best evidenced in his bookend speeches. One speech was given in July 2008 when he was a sitting senator campaigning for the job of president.
The other speech was given in November 2016 after he has served two terms. Both speeches were given in Berlin. The symbolize and importance of this location can not be overstated. In June 24, 1948, the communists chose to blockade the Western part of the city by erecting a literal wall. As Obama points out in the speech the intention of this action was to “…cut off food and supplies to more than a million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin”. For many years, this wall stood. However, eventually it came down. But, only once the United States and the democratic global community got involved in the affairs of their neighbors for the betterment of the governed. Obama foreshadowed the need for R2P and globalism in his 2008 speech when he stated, “So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires the constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; progress and peace.
They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other…Now is the time to build bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic”. There is a common expression attributed to producer, Robert Evans, that goes something like this, “There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve differently”. This quote emphasizes my position. I feel there is a middle ground. I believe that both presidents’ positions are correct. President Trump is correct. We should not enforce the R2P doctrine at the cost of the United State’s sovereignty. We should protect the ourselves against foreign influence. This protection includes who crosses our borders and who can legally reside in the United States. The order of priority in responsibility to protest lists the responsibility to prevent violence and protect the civilian populations within its borders in first place. There is a reason for this. A nation can not take care of others if it cannot fully take care of itself. We must get our own house in order before helping build the houses of others. Obama’s words are equally true.
We are no longer a new nation separated by a vast ocean. We are connected via the internet. Our finances have become intertwined. The Silk Road is no longer an ancient network of trade routes that connected the East and West. Rather, it was an illegal online that provided a platform to sell illegal goods until it was shut down in October 2013 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This example illustrates our global interconnectedness. Yet, this uplifting of the global community should not only extend to the rich nations. Its reach should extend to the improverished and developing ones as well. The solution lies in the assumption that both positions are true. In order to attain the lofty goals of R2P, we must develop partnerships. This approach means that there is shared work and sacrifice. No one nation should burdened with the task of being the globe’s benefactor or police force.
The United States in conjunction with all other nations should promote diplomacy through talking and actually listening to one another. This could be achieved by codifying the R2P into an international agreement signed by all parties. Legal agreements benefit the involved parties while ensuring no one party to the agreement is the recipient of a total windfall. An agreement can define the terms of engagement and intervention. It can also protect each individual nation’s sovereignty by providing consequences for those who break the agreement. In the end, we are stronger in the end when all of us in the global community are permitted to rise together. In closing, I believe, Mr. Obama summed it up best in his 2008 speech in Berlin when he stated, “. . .That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape the responsibility of meeting them”.
