Upfront
Using the N Word
The Paradoxes Of American Power
In March, during the first week of the war in Iraq, I went to Washington, D.C. to begin work on this issue, which is focused on American power, strategy and foreign policy in the Pacific Islands. It was an eerie week to be there as helicopters circled incessantly overhead and large demonstrations took place over two weekends. And the war proves crucial in the near-term future of the U.S.’s relations with the rest of the world, including the Pacific.
But it was not until the latest issue of the magazine Foreign Policy arrived just a few days ago that I was given the word I needed to describe what’s happened to U.S. foreign policy in a post-Iraq war world. It’s the forbidden N word, which in this case is Nationalism. Minxin Pei’s cover essay, called “The Paradoxes of American Nationalism,” is initially shocking, just because of its title. And he points out how the word is something Americans always use to describe other countries—old world powers or primitive ethnically- or religiously-defined governments we love to despise.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
In other countries we can see nationalism in action, but we don’t see it at home because we’ve always called it patriotism, which is something no one is allowed to criticize.
This is very similar to the C word situation. Americans have never been able to get the word Colonial out of their mouths when talking about themselves. The U.S. has never been able to think of itself as a colonial power, even though it remains one to this day—long after most of the world has decolonized.
Americans in general, and the Bush Administration in particular, are nationalists to a degree far beyond that of other industrialized countries. One of the primary qualities of this nationalism is arrogance. (Congressman Faleomavaega uses that very word in our overview piece. Click here to read the story.) Like President Bush, few Americans have much experience living or traveling in other countries. This may be one reason for the ignorance that assumes that American values, economic practices and political structure are what is best for everyone in the world. And we’ve got American military might to deliver it.
Except for the Compact II negotiations with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, the U.S. is basically neglecting the rest of the region. With the State Department immersed in the tangled U.S. relations in North Korea, China and Japan, the Islands will always be a second-tier concern.
To be fair to the Bush Administration, it must be recalled that the U.S. pull-out from the Pacific Islands began in the Clinton years, when USAID offices in Suva were closed and aid money was diverted to other targets. Except for its colonies (excuse me, I mean territories) in the North Pacific and American Samoa, and for Compact funding for the Freely Associated States, the U.S aid presence is virtually absent from the Pacific.
The Iraq war has created a rift between New Zealand and Australia, and between New Zealand and the U.S. Richard Halloran takes a look (click here) at the calculations that moved Australia to join the Coalition of the Willing. Who joined and who didn’t will be a defining factor of U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
And those who don’t agree with the nationalistic excesses of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld camp are simply unpatriotic.
