Solve International Crisis by Internationalism

Will the United States go to war against the terrorists that perpetrated the atrocities of September 11, 2001? What should be the response of our government? Everyone agrees the U.S. should do something, but everyone worries about bringing on a wider war. After all, it was a terrorist act that started World War I, but that war was caused as much by the response of states to that terrorism. To divine the answers to these questions, listen carefully to the rhetoric of politicians and journalists, for the debate about the meaning of September 11 will do no less than shape the political destiny of the world in the next century.

There will be conflict in this debate between different points of view and different visions of the world. This debate has existed for a long time and basic themes of the argument have already shaped our history. If we are to act wisely we should understand these themes, evaluate both their past successes and failures, and look to the future to imagine where they will take us and whether we want to go there.

To oversimplify things, there are basically two visions of international relations. In the “Realist” worldview conflict is a natural and inescapable feature of world politics. The world community is basically seen as an anarchic system of nations competing for power and dominance. Historically, this view has led to the balance of power doctrine. Given the unstable and competitive nature of the world system, the view goes, peace can only reign if there is either a balance of power between the major rivals of the globe or a “hegemon”, a country so powerful and dominant that it can dictate peace to the other nations of the world. This Realist vision of the world was behind the Cold War of the last century. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. were led into bloody conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan because they were competing with each other to maintain the balance of power. If either country let the other gain an advantage, the theory suggested, the balance of power in the international system would collapse, destroying the less vigilant competitor.

In the post-Cold War world Realism has had to reinvent itself. The key argument in this reinvention has been Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory. Huntington holds that the future of international politics will be shaped by an inevitable conflict between the forces of Western Civilization (which favor democracy and capitalism) and the forces of the Islamic Civilization (which favor a society shaped completely by Islam). Thus despite the seeming peacefulness of the pos-Cold War World, realists see in our present circumstance even greater danger: a battle for civilization itself.

The Realists will favor the use of military power, even if it leads to war, because they think civilization is at stake. If they are convinced that the Islamic World represents a civilization in unavoidable conflict with the West, they are likely see our current crisis as not just the work of isolated terrorists but as part of a serious challenge that must be met. To do otherwise, they will believe, will only invite the further growth of an Islamic challenge to Western Civilization.

The other important worldview in the international relations community could be called “Internationalism”. Internationalists believe that the cycle of violence that has characterized history can be controlled. They believe that conflict is neither natural nor inescapable. Such conflict can be controlled, they argue, through the creation of an international political system based on shared values and interests. This system consists of a complex of international organizations like the United Nations, World Court, World Trade Organization, and NATO that integrate the world politically and economically. If this system of cooperation is gradually extended, the argument goes, then those who don’t play within the rules of the international system will be isolated politically and economically, and they will then be tempted to join the international political system and start playing by the rules.

The Internationalists will favor building coalitions of allies within existing international institutions in order to hunt down and legally prosecute those responsible for the tragedy of September 11. Doing so, they will hope, will strengthen the international system by knitting member countries more closely together and asserting commonalities of interest and values to bring in new members, even current pariah states like Iran and Afghanistan.

You will know the Internationalists when they start talking about responding to the current crisis by “joining with our allies” or “reaching out to the world”. You will know the Realists when they start talking about “enemies of civilization” or appeals to rapid and overwhelming vengeance. Of course, some arguments will contain elements of both points of view but watch carefully, for this argument matters. Again, the destiny of our world is at stake.

Let me suggest that there is danger in Realism and opportunity in Internationalism. If we listen to Realists like Steve Dunleavy in the New York Post (“As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts”) or editorial writers in the Washington Times who have called for nuclear strikes against Afghanistan, it is more likely that we will create the very Islamic bugaboo that we fear. That destiny would only make our already profound loss more catastrophic. But if we channel our righteous anger into activities within the bounds of international institutions and follow the emerging international rule of law, then we have a greater chance of transforming this tragedy into the possibility of peace in this new century.