.
I have asked myself series of questions I could not answer, pushing me to spend my whole day reading speeches of former presidents of the United States of America. In my reading, I sought to discover the approach of American leaders in international relations, whether or not they all believe in using War-showcasing the might of US to control the rest of the world in the advancement of its interest, dominance and wealth. I also enquired to understand whether the use of war can be described as a tool of survival or it is simply to torture, antangonize others or distort the World order.
Global politics is such a complicated subject matter to be appreciated in a single read. Of course, the study of global politics is virtually incomplete without the study of America's conduct in the international plane particularly so, in the recent global instability.
I have read about five different speeches former Presidents of America but I have not been able to answer these questions satisfactorily to myself and I guess you are equally pondering over them. One thing is clear. The saying that America has no permament friend or enemy but permanent interest featured predominantly, directly and indirectly in the philosophy, approach and strategy adopted by each government of US.
In the words of Dwight Eisenhower, a former Republican President of US from 1953 to 1961 in his farewell speech given on 17th January, 1961, he stated
" ...we now stand ten years past the midpoint of a centuary that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and the most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this dominance, we yet realise that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment..."
From my analysis of the quote, the approach of the nation by then was not the use of war as an approach to the advancement of America's interest. The nation had regarded world peace and human betterment as indispensable to the progress of America. Perhaps, the country had come to the realisation that the endless and escalating budgetary allocations to military security on daily basis more than the net income of the United States Corporations was not only unproductive but superflously unsustainable. It was the situation by then and the choice of this approach was a pragmatic diplomatic repositioning in the global affairs.
The second possible reason would be that America wanted to entrench democracy for generations. "We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
Let me now delve into the approach of President Gerald R Ford who was president from 1994 to 1977. In a sensational speech he made amid the international turmoil surrounding the end of Vietnam War on 23 April, 1975. Gerald was empahtic " we as a nation had suffered humiliation and a measure of defeat in the war of 1812. Our National Capital in Washington had been captured and burned. So the illustrous victory in the Battle of New Orleans was powerful restorative to our national pride ..."
He was lamentating over bitter experiences of war, isn't it? Perhaps people thought America has never been defeated in war. Indeed, they have had their fair share of the excesses of War, shaping their future decisions in global affairs.
In that speech, Gerald continued "...I envision a creative programme that goes as far as our courage and our capacities can take us, both at home and abroad. My goal is for a cooperative world at peace, using its resources to build not to destroy..."
Clearly from this, a new approach manifested. A shift from War to a cooperative world at peace. America was determined at the time to cooperate with the rest of the world to ensuring global peace, giving birth to new strategic diplomacy having realised that America cannot succeed without peace. The period saw America's policy shift to advancing technology and using same to harness its resources.
Let me be straight to the point, anytime America saw/sees the need for peace, they embrace it and benefit from it but when the situation demands, they shift to embrace war. A further cursory look into the history corroborates these two positional stands when it comes to War. They are inconisistent! Pundits describe America as playing double standards when it comes to global peace.
I attach here, a summary of the approaches of America's leaders when it comes to war and diplomacy.
1. George Washington (1789-1797)
: Independent → Neutrality
2. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809): Democratic-Republican → Avoided war
3. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865): Republican → Fought Civil War
4. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
: Republican → "Big Stick"
5. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921): Democrat → WWI, League of Nations
6. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)*: Democrat → WWII, UN
7. Harry Truman (1945-1953): Democrat → Atomic bombs, Korean War
8. Eisenhower (1953-1961): Republican → Nuclear deterrence
9. Kennedy (1961-1963): Democrat → Cuban Missile Crisis diplomacy
10. Nixon (1969-1974): Republican → Ended Vietnam War, China relations
11. Reagan (1981-1989): Republican → Cold War stance
12. Obama (2009-2017)*: Democrat → Diplomacy, ended Iraq War
To conclude, I have observed, with keen interest, that America has not done much in taking a principled position to contributing to global peace. There is a historical trend, that points to their conservatively predictable position in global affairs. US chooses peace not because it loves the rest of the world but because there is an ultimate interest to advance. This, rather cunning attitude of America fails to match the test of time of the global spate of development.
Nothing much of an innovation has been done by way of strategy, making America so predictable that former loyalists are becoming enemies and the vice versa. It is a flip-flop position. I must be fast to admit that America, having realised its millitary might, is leveraging same as the major resource for survival. So in my opinion, war is an intrument of survival to America. War paves the way for diplomatic deals that pull them resources they hitherto lacked while they explore their next victim.
Donald Trump’s position no matter how insensitive it may be seen today, is well grounded in history but the rest of the world must be firm to tell America that Sovereignty is sacred and that the might of another state cannot be used to commit acts that destabilises global peace.
On the celebration of the 69th independence day of Ghana, I pray for global peace but keep thinking about the statement of Dr Kwame Nkrumah. " The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total lineberation of the rest of the African Continent."
So many years after this prophetic advocacy, African leaders have not been able to unite and work together. While some have become poodles of the West, some have made their country men slaves to neo colonialists while they (some African leaders) satisfy their insatifiable quest for material wealth.
What do African leaders make of War? What has been the diplomatic strategy of the continent in the international plane? We must be pondering over these questions because diplomacy that ends with the exhange of coffee is a betrayal of the interest and welfare of the people. Irrespective of any solidarity and alliance with so called powerful states, we will remain unsave and insecure until we unite.
Denis Andaban
The Village Boy From DBI
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!