Two Different American Approaches to the World

Two Different American Approaches to the World

Mar 6 2025 Global Cooperation

The recent whirlwind of the incoming United States (U.S.) administration’s foreign policy measures―many reversing those of the previous administration―illustrates the fact that Americans have sharply different opinions about their relationship to other nations.

The current president’s approach―which he has labeled “America First”―is clear enough. He has blocked U.S. humanitarian assistance abroad by shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, twice pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, and scrapped numerous nuclear arms control and disarmament accords (including the Iran nuclear agreement, the Open Skies Treaty, and the INF Treaty). Taking a hard line against the foreign-born for their alleged criminality and “poisoning the blood” of Americans, he has suspended refugee asylum in the United States and begun the process of arresting and deporting 11 million migrants.

This vision of America’s role in the world relies upon a vast U.S. military buildup and tariff wars to coerce other nations into line with his aims. Indeed, he has even blatantly championed old-fashioned imperialist expansion by calling for annexing Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and Gaza―the latter to be purged of its Palestinian population. Not surprisingly, his administration has shown particular contempt for international organizations, promising a crackdown on the United Nations and sanctioning the International Criminal Court and its supporters. Recently, he has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council.

Although it’s doubtful that this mixture of strident nationalism and xenophobia benefits Americans, it does have deep roots in American history. In the nineteenth century, the fledgling U.S. government acquired vast new continental territories thanks to wars and treaties at the expense of indigenous peoples. The largest of these land-grabs included the Mexican War and countless Indian wars. Overseas expansion surged during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when the U.S. government colonized and annexed the Philippines, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and, also, militarily intervened in Mexico, the Caribbean nations, South America, and China. Although the rapidly-growing United States remained open to immigrants during its first century, restrictions on Asian immigrants began in the late nineteenth century. And a discriminatory National Origins Quota System―designed to drastically reduce immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe―was put into place in the early twentieth century.

In the aftermath of World War I, what became known as “isolationism” swept through the United States, ultimately leading the U.S. government to reject membership in the League of Nations and the World Court, as well as to adopt a policy of “appeasement” of the fascist nations, then busy conquering portions of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. government into World War II and produced growing respect for international law, the U.S. government, during the Cold War years, insisted upon maintaining the world’s mightiest military establishment. Pursuing what was termed “the national interest,” it also engaged in numerous unilateral ventures, including toppling foreign government and waging brutal, vastly destructive wars (such as the one in Vietnam).

But this is only part of the story, for there was always another America―one recognizing that it was just and necessary to move nations beyond national selfishness to global cooperation. This tendency might be called “Global Community.”

After all, the U.S. government did play a major role in initiating the League of Nations and, ultimately, in moving beyond isolationism (and its leading advocate, the America First Committee) and defeating the fascist powers. It also played a very significant part in establishing the United Nations, appropriately headquartered in America’s largest city. Just as, in the years before World War II, the American government terminated its occupation regimes in Caribbean nations, so, after the war, it ended its postwar occupation regimes in European and Asian nations. To aid in postwar European recovery, it created the Marshall Plan, a massive economic aid program that played a key role in reviving war-torn Western Europe. After the establishment of the United Nations, the U.S. government became its leading funder, promoting the international organization’s worldwide international security, humanitarian, and health programs.

Nor was this all. In the postwar years, the U.S. government supported the termination of colonial regimes by the European colonial powers that had ruled much of Africa and Asia, thereby dramatically increasing the number of independent nations. Meanwhile, it swept away the previous U.S. discriminatory immigration system, resulting in a more multicultural society. Although the U.S. government continued to engage in great power confrontation during the Cold War, it eventually accepted that conflict’s peaceful termination through international agreements. These included very significant nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties―treaties that did not give primacy to America or any other country. Some years later, the Obama administration followed up by pressing, albeit unsuccessfully, for the creation of a nuclear weapons-free world. Furthermore, determined to tackle the growing global climate crisis, it signed the Paris climate accord.

How did it happen that these two quite different approaches to the world developed in the policies of the same nation?

The answer appears to lie in the fact that America’s relationship to the world has always been contested terrain. From the Know Nothings, to the Ku Klux Klan, to the current nativist movement, the United States has always contained plenty of people hostile to foreigners and celebrating a mythical “Americanism.” And there have also been plenty of people―from the League of Universal Brotherhood, to the United Nations Association, to Citizens for Global Solutions―who have argued that we’re all in this together.

At present, the America Firsters are clearly in control of the U.S. government. But, of course, the future is never predictable. Indeed, it’s quite possible that there will be a revival of the impetus to build a global community—one that can address the world’s problems and even, perhaps, overcome them.

That would be a great day for both America and the world.

Read More
A Government for the World

A Government for the World

Nov 22 2024 Global Cooperation

The latest rollout of the hyper-nationalist “America First” policy underscores the world’s long-term slide toward catastrophe.

Within nations, when conflicts inevitably erupt, there are laws, as well as police, courts, and governments that enforce the laws.

On the global level, however, governance is quite limited. The UN Security Council, responsible under the UN Charter for maintaining international peace and security, is frequently hamstrung by the veto, which the five great powers of 1945 insisted upon according to themselves. By this April, it had been employed 321 times. Although the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court deliver legally binding judgments, based on international law, such judgments are not always obeyed. The UN General Assembly votes on key international issues as well, but such votes are merely advisory. Consequently, these international organizations issue laudable statements, while the most powerful nations all too frequently defy them and go on their merry, marauding way.

The Russian government is currently continuing its massive military invasion of Ukraine and annexing its territory while ignoring the demands of the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice to end Russia’s aggression and withdraw from Ukraine. Similarly, the Israeli government ignores the demands of these world organizations to end its brutal war upon and occupation of Palestine.

From the overwhelming votes in the UN General Assembly to condemn the Russian and Israeli invasions, we can see what most of the world’s nations want done to address these terrible situations. But there is no implementation of their demand to respect international law―law that lacks effective international enforcement.

Over the course of human history, this international lawlessness has contributed to a might-makes-right approach to world affairs, in which militarily powerful nations play the dominant role. Naturally, then, nations have gravitated toward military buildups, making some very powerful, indeed.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the top military spenders in 2023 (the latest year for which figures are available) are the United States ($916 billion), China ($296 billion), Russia ($109 billion), and India ($84 billion). But others―Israel ($28 billion) and North Korea (amount unknown)―also rank among the big-time military spenders. All told, the nations of the world devoted at least $2,443 billion to war and preparations for war, an increase over the previous year of nearly 7 percent.

Military spending is not the only way to measure militarism. The Global Peace Index 2024, compiled by the Institute for Economics and Peace, used the level of societal safety and security, the extent of ongoing domestic and international conflict, and the degree of militarization to examine 163 independent nations and territories. Not surprisingly, the major military powers ranked low on the scale of peacefulness, including China (88th), India (116th), the United States (132nd), North Korea (152nd), Israel (155th), and Russia (157th).

By contrast to these military behemoths―possessing the mightiest military forces in world history, including arsenals of nuclear weapons―the United Nations has remained a relatively anemic organization, speaking truth but lacking power.

Sometimes, the major military powers cope with the explosive global situation by making deals with one another―although such deals rarely create the basis for a peaceful world. For example, the August 23, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (better known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact) provided for détente between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, two highly-militarized nations that had previously been at odds. In this secret protocol, Hitler and Stalin agreed to share Poland and give Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and other East European territories to the Soviet Union. On September 1, Germany invaded western Poland, thereby beginning World War II. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union took action to seize its share of the spoils. As early as July 1940, however, the German High Command began planning its invasion of the Soviet Union, which occurred the following June, ending this cozy arrangement.

On other occasions, major military powers have formed alliances. Wary of a military attack by their rivals or eager to bolster their strength for a military attack upon them, these “great powers” have enhanced their military might by creating military alliances with weaker nations. The weaker nations, for their part, sometimes seek alliances with the militarily powerful to guarantee their own security.

But alliances, too, have provided a shaky basis for maintaining international peace. During the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (dominated by the United States) and the Warsaw Pact (dominated by the Soviet Union) engaged in remarkably dangerous nuclear confrontations. Furthermore, both alliances experienced serious internal convulsions. In 1956, Hungary withdrew from the Warsaw Pact, leading to a Soviet invasion that slaughtered 2,500 Hungarians and sent 200,000 fleeing abroad.

Today, the traditional system of every-nation-for-itself is leading to disaster. There are currently 56 active military conflicts in the world, the largest number since the end of World War II. These conflicts are also becoming more internationalized, with 92 nations engaged in a conflict beyond their borders. According to the Global Peace Index, “there has been a significant rise in both conflicts and battle deaths in the past two decades, with battle deaths reaching a thirty-year high.”

Overarching this grim toll lies a revived nuclear arms race, increasingly likely to erupt into a nuclear war that will annihilate most life on Earth.

In this situation, there is a desperate need for effective global governance. Or, to put things differently, the world needs a stronger United Nations―strong enough to resolve conflicts among nations and, thereby, maintain international peace and security.

The task of strengthening global governance is difficult, but not impossible. There are ways to limit the use of the veto in the UN Security Council (as championed by many nations), transfer security issues to the UN General Assembly (where there is majority rule and no veto), and increase the jurisdiction of international judicial bodies. It’s also necessary and possible to provide the UN with an independent source of income to fund an expanded range of activities.

The time has come to transform the United Nations into a federation of nations that can effectively uphold international law―a government for the world. With such a government, we would have a much better chance of restraining outlaw nations and averting the nuclear catastrophe that looms before us.

Read More
The Time Has Come To Build A Viable Global System Of Collective Security

The Time Has Come To Build A Viable Global System Of Collective Security

May 4 2023 Global Cooperation

Lessons Repeat Themselves Until Learned

One of the inescapable features of human existence is that lessons we fail to learn repeat themselves over and over, usually with increasing ferocity until the lesson is learned. This principle applies not only to our individual lives, but to humanity’s collective life as well. One of these global lessons that has been repeating itself with ever-increasing intensity is that localized or regional conflicts have global repercussions.

A good example is the war in Syria, which spawned a number of crises that impacted countries far beyond its border. One of them was the refugee crisis, which affected not only Syria’s immediate Middle Eastern neighbors like Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey but had far-reaching effects in Europe as well. The wave of refugees washing up on Europe’s shores was a driving force in the rise of right-wing governments in several countries. It was also one of the factors that precipitated Brexit, as the United Kingdom frantically attempted to take control of its own destiny and limit the flow of unwanted refugees to its shores.

The Syrian conflict also created fertile conditions in Syria and Iraq that allowed ISIS to flourish and carry out brutal acts that impacted the citizens of many nations near and far. In addition, the civil war in Syria resulted in the creation of what some of the media referred to as a “proto world war,” as countries arrayed themselves on opposing sides of a widening conflict.

We Missed the Opportunity to Learn from the War in Syria

Unfortunately, the international community failed to grasp the opportunity arising from the conflict in Syria to devise a global mechanism to end the Syrian conflict. It is therefore no surprise that one of the most pressing conflicts of the day, Russia’s war against Ukraine, has left our global leaders paralyzed, dithering, taking half-measures and seemingly unable to take the kind of decisive and effective action that would have nipped it in the bud before it festered into the global morass it is today.

The War in Ukraine Has Triggered Several Global Crises

This latest regional conflict has been having its own world-encircling impact: indeed, it has been responsible for triggering several global crises. They include a global food crisis that has resulted in food shortages and the rise in the price of bread, a staple food which so many, especially in the poorest nations, rely on for survival. The Ukraine conflict has also sparked a global energy crisis as the flow of natural gas from Russia, on which many countries have relied, has significantly diminished. The result has been a spike in the price of energy across the world, including the richer nations of Europe. In the U.K. alone, the cost of heating homes has risen dramatically, causing much economic pain. As though this were not enough, the war has contributed to the rise of stubborn inflation worldwide which is having a significant and deleterious impact on the global economy. Some, including the World Bank, fear that we will soon find ourselves in a global recession.

To add to all these global crises, the nations of the world are dividing themselves into two opposing camps with the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand arrayed on one side and Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and possibly India on the other. This level of global polarization constitutes a threat to global peace and security. In the past, it has led to world wars, a consequence we want to avoid at all costs. The threat is exacerbated by the increasing worry that nuclear weapons may be used either accidentally or deliberately by one of these nations in a moment of heated miscalculation, triggering a nuclear war, which, even if limited geographically, would have disastrous consequences for humanity.

It’s Time to Revisit President Wilson’s 14 Points and the Atlantic Charter

The ever-increasing cascade of crises points to the imperative need for the international community to devise a viable global system of collective security that is capable of ensuring international peace. It is time for the world to revisit and finally implement two principles proposed by two American presidents in the early and middle parts of the twentieth century.

The first is the principle that was proposed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1918 as part of his 14 Point program which called for limiting the number of arms each nation can possess to the smallest amount consistent with domestic safety. Alas, the world failed to implement this recommendation when it created the League of Nations in the aftermath of the First World War. It failed to do so at its peril and suffered another devastating world war. The world then missed another opportunity to implement President Wilson’s recommendation when the United Nations was created after the Second World War.

The second principle that the world should seriously revisit and implement is set out in Article 8 of the Atlantic Charter, drawn up by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941. This principle called for nations to abandon the use of force “for realistic as well as spiritual reasons.” It, too, was never implemented.

The Key to Peace is Creating a Global System of Collective Security

Given the recent horrors humanity has experienced as a result of the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine (and in many other nations, including Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Sudan), the international community may finally be ready to build a global system of collective security that is firmly grounded in these two foundational principles.

Read More
From Nationalist Isolation To Global Citizenship

From Nationalist Isolation To Global Citizenship

Apr 18 2023 Global Cooperation

For many years, a portion of the world public has sought to wall itself off from people abroad by hiding behind national borders.

Nationalist Isolation in the United States and Elsewhere

In the United States, this tendency became an important element in American politics. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Republican Party embraced isolationism and spurned the new League of Nations. Indeed, for a time, President Warren G. Harding’s State Department refused to even acknowledge correspondence from the League. Republican leaders also played a key role in the America First Committee, founded in 1940 to oppose U.S. aid to Britain in its lonely resistance to the fascist military onslaught. Admittedly, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the GOP shifted course, backing U.S. participation in World War II and the development of the United Nations. In the postwar years, however, this internationalist approach gradually dissipated, especially as the Republican Party moved rightward. Increasingly, the GOP portrayed international treaties and foreigners as threats to “the American way of life.”

The descent into xenophobia was particularly evident during the presidency of Donald Trump. Proclaiming an “America First” policy and ridiculing “global citizenship,” he assailed the United Nations, withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization, championed the building of border walls, banned travel to the United States from select countries, and pulled the U.S. government out of international climate and arms control agreements. “You know what I am?” Trump remarked to a campaign crowd in October 2018. “I’m a nationalist. OK? I’m a nationalist.”

Even after his 2020 election defeat, Trump has continued to promote an “America First” policy, while other leading Republicans, ranging from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have done much the same. MAGA extremists like Tucker Carson and Marjorie Taylor Greene increasingly set a strident nationalist tone for the current GOP. Nor are they out of line with most of their voters, According to polls, most Republicans oppose their government’s taking international action against climate change, aiding refugees fleeing violence, defending human rights in other countries, and strengthening the United Nations.

Of course, this kind of narrow nationalism has been and remains common in many lands, where notions of national superiority have facilitated imperialism, militarism, disdain for foreigners, and ignorance of the world. Rightwing political movements seem particularly prone to nationalist hysteria; witness, for example, the chauvinism displayed by fascist parties of the past and present. But flag-waving glorification of the nation has certainly not been limited to the Right or, for that matter, to any country.

Problems with the Nationalist Approach

Despite their ubiquity, however, nationalist disrespect and contempt for people of other lands run counter to most of the world’s great ethical and religious teachings, which call for fairness, charity, and even love for others. The oft-cited Golden Rule―“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”―is not limited by national boundaries. Similarly, “welcoming the stranger,” a direct challenge to xenophobia, has deep resonance in traditional moral preachments. In fact, xenophobia is a form of nationally-based selfishness that undermines the fundamentals of ethical behavior.

Moreover, a nationalist approach is very unrealistic. After all, in today’s world, no single country or group of countries can cope effectively with the severe problems that confront us. These problems include war (and perhaps nuclear war), climate catastrophe, disease pandemics, resource scarcity, widespread poverty, and mass migration. Given advances in modern science and technology, solutions to these problems are feasible. Even so, as these are global problems, it is hard to see how they can be addressed successfully without implementing global solutions. And these solutions require international cooperation.

The Rise of Global Citizenship

Fortunately, as ethical obligations have been reinforced by global realities, many international voluntary organizations have emerged to deal with such issues as war (the International Peace Bureau and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), environmental defense (Greenpeace, 350.org, and the World Wildlife Fund), and preservation of human life and health (the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Doctors without Borders). Other concerns that have led to the development of international voluntary organizations include aid to refugees (the International Rescue Committee), the alleviation of poverty (Oxfam International), and the defense of workers’ rights (the International Trade Union Confederation).

In addition, international governmental institutions, working to address these and other challenges, have developed over the past century. The best known of them is probably the United Nations. But others include the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Working together, they have helped fashion international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In an effort to promote further progress along these lines, some organizations, such as the World Federalist Movement, call for strengthening international cooperation by building a united federation of nations. And there is much to be said for this approach. After all, these international organizations, institutions, and agreements point the way forward to a global civilization where nations are not invaded and relentlessly bombed to satisfy the imperial ambitions of an arrogant ruler, where people do not go hungry when there is food enough for all, and where people’s homes and lands are no longer overwhelmed by environmental disasters to safeguard the profits of giant fossil fuel corporations.

As the development of international social movements and institutions has shown us, people around the globe who seek to move beyond the artificial boundaries that have separated them can work together to address their common problems by building an ever more united world. Having wallowed in futile and self-defeating national isolation for centuries, the people of the world can take effective action to transcend their divided past in the interest of a brighter future . . . for all!

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany, the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press) and other books on international issues, and a board member of the Citizens for Global Solutions Education Fund.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Citizens for Global Solutions.

Read More
If Youth Is The Future, Why Don’t We Have A Say About It?

If Youth Is The Future, Why Don’t We Have A Say About It?

Mar 30 2023 Global CooperationUnited Nations

Being invited to the first Global Future Forum in New York City from March 20-22 was something I never imagined when I arrived in the United States seven months ago. My name is Marina Jiménez, and I am a fourth-year Law and Political student from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. Last September, I came to the United States to study for a year at Northeastern University (Boston) and,  I was given an opportunity to be sponsored by Citizens for Global Solutions to not just to be part of the first Global Future Forum but to present my research paper, “Open Door opportunities that leave many young people on the doorstep” about the exploitative unpaid internships in the United Nations (UN) at the Youth Pavilion..

But first things first. What was the Global Futures Forum? The Global Futures Forum (GFF) was a two-day event celebrated in New York to conclude several months of work on the “People’s Pact for the Future”, a document that encapsulates several proposals made by civil society about the UN’s future and the reforms that must be made, as an attempt to not only be heard but be presented at  the Summit of the Future in 2024. During the previous weeks, Coalition For the UN We Need (C4UN) and the Stimson Center– the coalition that made it all possible; coordinated different E-consultations related to seven tracks: Peace and Security, Human Rights and Participation, UN and Global Governance and Innovation, Global Economic and Financial Architecture, Environmental Governance, Development and Digital Compact. By doing so, people all around the world, all ages and all backgrounds got the chance to bring to the table their concerns and suggestions for a better future. Undoubtedly, GFF represents a significant milestone in the way civil society supports intergovernmental processes. Empowering civil society in international decision-making is the first step towards a stronger, more networked, and inclusive multilateral UN system.

To this effect and to ensure GFF was inclusive itself, it included an entirely youth-led and youth-focused forum, promoting the key role of youth in the monitoring, review and the implementation of Our Common Agenda and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Needless to say that youth representation is a critical stakeholder that is almost never invited to the negotiating table, so being invited and having a voice is an important part of civil society has been an important move. While historically, the lack of young people in high decision-making processes is common, young have the power and full knowledge of our concerns and ambitions, and we will no longer sit on the sidelines. We demand to be part of the conversation and the solutions that concern our futures moving forward. Listening to the voice of youth is a vital part of understanding our society as a whole.

Youth have been undervalued and many in power tend to think that we are “too young and inexperienced” to be a relevant player on the field. But we are not. We are nearly half of the world’s population, and we are more educated than ever. We do not want to be just consulted. We are tired of being asked to share our opinions and solutions without seeing any real change. We want to see our proposals being taken seriously, to the same extent as those of the rest of the involved stakeholders. We want to have a say in our future. We want to get on Board.

That is why I am pleased that the “People’s Pact for the Future” that we drafted will reach the hands of the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, and the negotiating parties at the Summit for the Future 2024. It is the most useful way to get our claims to where the decisions that affect our day-to-day lives are made. While not every recommendation will materialize from the conference, we must continue to raise our voices at all levels of power, what we experienced could be a turning point in the way the world thinks about and treats youth. It remains to be seen whether they seize the opportunity or miss the boat again.

Read More
Whose Red Lines?

Whose Red Lines?

Mar 7 2023 Global CooperationWorld Federation

In the conflict-ridden realm of international relations, certain terms are particularly useful, and one of them is “Red Lines.”  Derived from the concept of a “line in the sand,” first employed in antiquity, the term “Red Lines” appears to have emerged in the 1970s to denote what one nation regards as unacceptable from other nations.  In short, it is an implicit threat.

Russian Red Lines

Vladimir Putin, self-anointed restorer of the Russian empire, has tossed about the term repeatedly in recent years.  “I hope nobody will get it into their heads to cross Russia’s so-called red line,” he warned in April 2021.  “Where it will be drawn, we will decide ourselves in each specific case.”  These red lines, although addressing a variety of issues, have been proclaimed frequently.  At the end of that November, Putin announced that Russia would take action if NATO crossed its “red lines” on Ukraine, saying that the deployment of offensive missile capabilities on Ukrainian soil would serve as a trigger.  In mid-December, as Russian military forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine, the Russian foreign ministry demanded that NATO not only rule out any further expansion, but remove any troops or weapons from NATO members Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Balkan countries and obtain Russian permission before holding any military drills in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia.

Finally, on February 24, 2022, Putin―ignoring a U.S. offer to negotiate some of these items―sent a massive Russian military force pouring into Ukraine in a full-scale invasion.  “This is the red line that I talked about multiple times,” he said, and “they have crossed it.”  Most nations were not impressed by this justification, for the Russian invasion and subsequent annexation of large portions of Ukraine were clear violations of international law and, as such, were condemned by the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.

Of course, Putin’s red lines and international aggression, though particularly blatant, are hardly the only features of this kind that have appeared throughout Russian or world history.

American and Chinese Red Lines

The United States has a lengthy record in this regard.  As Professor Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School has written, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 involved “drawing a red line―with an implicit war threat” against “any European efforts to colonize or reassert control in the Western Hemisphere.”  Given the relative weakness of the United States at the time, the U.S. government did not attempt to enforce President James Monroe’s grandiose pronouncement.  But, with the emergence of the United States as a great power, its government expanded the Monroe Doctrine to justify frequent U.S. meddling in hemispheric affairs, including conquering and annexing Latin American territory.  Even in recent decades, when U.S. annexations have become a relic of the past, the U.S. government has engaged in military intervention in other lands, especially in the Caribbean and Central America, but also in Asia and the Middle East (where President George W. Bush drew what he called “a line in the sand”).

In recent years, as China’s military and economic power have grown, its government, too, has begun emphasizing its red lines.  Meeting with U.S. President Joseph Biden in mid-November 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that Taiwan was the “first red line that must not be crossed.”  Xi did not mention the tension-fraught situation in the South China Sea, where China had set up military fortifications on islands claimed by its neighbors, including Vietnam and the Philippines.  But here, as well, China had red lines―leading to the current dangerous confrontations between U.S. and Chinese warships in the region.  Sharply rejecting a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague that denied China’s control of the area, the Chinese government continued to build up fortifications on the disputed islands.  Furthermore, Chinese troops have continued for more than six decades to engage in violent military clashes with Indian troops along the disputed border, in the Himalayan region, between their two nations.

The Dangers of Red Lines Drawn by Individual Nations

Although it could be argued that red lines are only an innocent expression of what a nation considers unacceptable in world affairs, it’s worth noting that they are employed especially by major nations.  The “great powers,” after all, have the military strength to give their warnings some credibility.  Conversely, smaller, weaker nations do not usually bother to issue such pronouncements, as their warnings―and even their interests―are rarely taken as seriously.  For this reason, the issuance of red lines usually boils down to a matter of what nation has the power to compel other nations to accept its demands.

Consequently, red lines lead inevitably to spheres of influence that other nations are supposed to respect―including a U.S. sphere in Latin America, a Russian sphere in Europe, and a Chinese sphere in Asia.  Naturally, people and nations living in the shadow of these major powers are not enthusiastic about this arrangement, which explains why many Latin Americans want the Yankees to go home, many Europeans fear Russian hegemony, and many Asians are wary of the rise of China.

Another problem with the issuance of red lines is their tendency to inspire international conflict and war.  Given their roots in the professed interests of a single nation, they do not necessarily coincide with the interests of other nations.  In this competitive situation, conflict is almost inevitable.  Where, in these circumstances, is there a place for collective action to fashion a common agreement―one recognizing the fundamental interests of all nations?

A World Federalist Alternative

Rather than a world of red lines proclaimed by a few powerful nations, what humanity needs is a strengthened United Nations―a global federation of nations in which competing national priorities are reconciled and enforced through agreements, treaties, and international law.

Setting red lines for the world is too important to be left to individual, self-interested countries.  They should be set―and respected―by all.

Read More