Post No. 13: Prelude to Great Power Relations

Virtually all the wars in the last few centuries have resulted from powerful nation states viewing the world and other nations from a perspective of "Realism".  Realism is a theory of Great Power Relations where nations believe they must consider primarily their own interests and survival.  This sounds quite innocent except it is mostly this view that has led to the violent wars we all have studied in school.  I was quite affected by this phenomenon while in school and wondered why it is that humanity has been so prone to violence among nations.  What is it that we do not see when it comes to the nature of who we are as humans. One might think that our Judeo-Christian values would be a major check on this carnage among nations.  But anyone who knows a little history can attest that this has not been so.  Before we briefly touch the topic of human nature, let's take a look at how the United States became a major power and why it is in a unique position to affect positive change.

 

I am a great believer in the United States of America and it's ability to create transformative changes to further peace among nations. In fact we already have.  As the unchallenged superpower after World War II we ushered in an unprecedented period of peace by helping Europe rebuild after the war and providing protection against potential incursions by the Soviet Union.  We did not intervene behind the Iron Curtain of soviet states, and the USSR did not intervene in the free states of Europe.  Despite skirmishes in other parts of the world, relative peace prevailed for well over fifty years.  I will describe, in one or two later posts, more of what I think can happen in the future toward peace.  It will only happen if the U.S. is a major part of the solution.

 

The U.S. has also followed a geopolitical strategy of Realism.  At first the nation was incredibly fortunate in acquiring new lands peacefully.  In 1803 President Thomas Jefferson purchased from Napoleon all or large parts of the current states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.  This more than doubled our then current territory.  Napoleon badly needed funding for his European wars and was willing to forego his interests in North America in what is known as the "Louisiana Purchase".  Then in 1848 we were able to acquire Washington, Oregon and much of Idaho via peaceful negotiations, mainy from Great Britain.  At this point the U.S. owned the whole swath of the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific except for the Soutwestern area owned by Mexico.  The concept of "Manifest Destiny" stated that it was the nation's destiny to own all the lands to the Pacific ocean.  Mexico was not interested in selling or ceding this territory, so President Polk started a war over disputed territory with Mexico.  In less than two years the U.S. army entered Mexico City ending the war with Mexico.  In 1848, with the U.S. army occupying its capitol, Mexico ceded the Soutwestern region consisting of what is now California, Arizona, Nevada, parts of other states, and relinquished its claim to Texas.  As a result of all these acquisitions, from sea to shining sea, the United States became the undisputed dominant power on the American continent.  No one across the seas could now menance us as we were protected by two huge oceans from any potential invaders.   It allowed us to focus on trade, innovation and prosperity, which is what we did.  These acquisitions were absolutely essential to the U.S. becoming the unrivaled superpower since the end of World War II.  We are a flawed nation in light of our aggression against Mexico (and our own native population), and we have made many mistakes even into the twenty-first century.  Yet we are still the best thing going on this globe to further peace among nations.  More on this and Great Power Relations in future posts. 

What is it about humans that we have engaged in such violent wars?  Of course it is the leaders of nations that decide to engage in war.  This is true for both authoritarian and democratic countries.  Under both forms of government it has been the people who have enthusiastically enbraced the march to war.  In rare cases have the populace rose up to attempt to end a war after it had begun.  I can think of only two - the Vietnam war, and the soon-to-become Soviet Union withdrawing from World War I in 1918.  So despite the fact that rulers lead the nation to war, it is the people of the country that make it possible.

There are two main factors why people in a society support war: fear and nationalism.  A country's leaders are usually astute at amplifying both factors.  They realize that it is essential to influence the minds of the mass of humans in the society.  The near term solution to ending Great Power wars is to reimagine a more positive nationalism and reduce fear.  The next post or two will address these factors within the framework of Great Power Relations theory.

A very long term impact on war would be that many more humans begin to realize they are in reality not this separate self apart from the world around them, including people from other nations.  (See posts 3, 7 and 11 which subtly touch this topic). Realizing one is interconnected/not separate would go a long way to ameliorating what I call a "mafia mentality", i.e. that only those in the "family" should be kept safe and respected.  This will not happen anytime soon, hence the importance of Great Power Relations in resolving the dilemma of war.  Stay Tuned.