Source: Global Network
" Russian newspaper " website recently published an article saying that the United States was excited about the so-called "national construction" theory in the early 21st century. This theory believes that relying on establishing power institutions and cultivating loyal elites in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq , hegemonic countries can change and remotely control countries in key areas. However, the reality of Middle East proves that the "national construction" theory has gone bankrupt.
Engels once said: "Nationals that oppress other nations cannot be liberated." The United States is a typical example of the present. Over the years, the United States has relied on its status as a superpower and has been domineering in the world, seeking to establish a "axis-spoke" global imperial system, that is, a "globalized" international system backed by military power, politically led by the United States, and economically obeying American interests and needs. Especially since the 21st century, the United States has created a tragic atmosphere with the help of the "9/11" incident, launched wars one after another in the name of "anti-terrorism", and threatened to carry out "democratic transformation of the Middle East", and regarded Middle East as a test field to shape the "new world order". Unexpectedly, the final result was a complete failure. To some extent, the United States' failure in the Greater Middle East is very inevitable.
Although the United States is the only superpower in the world, its power distribution at different levels is uneven. According to the analysis of Joseph Nye , the United States is far ahead of other countries on the military level. But at the economic level, power distribution has been diversified. On transnational issues, the distribution of strength is more complicated. Moreover, global power has completely different meanings from global dominance. Having the ability to control the world does not mean that one can really control the world, and the Bush administration "overestimated the autonomy that is accompanied by military dominance." The U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq shows that “Americans are unable to rebuild every failed country in the world, or appease and calm every anti-American hatred. The more they try to do so, the more they put themselves in an over-expansion situation.”
Secondly, from a strategic perspective, simplification practices that are not commensurate with the reality of complexity have led to the effects of the U.S. policy.
First, it is trying to achieve the anti-terrorism goal through "democratic transformation". The Greater Middle East policy of the Bush Jr. was deeply influenced by the "democracy and peace theory" and especially the book Shalansky's " on Democracy and ". In Bush Jr.'s eyes, democracy leads to peace, and autocracy leads to terror. "In the Middle East, as long as tyranny, despair and resentment still exist, individuals and activities that threaten the safety of the United States and its friends will continue to arise." Based on this, the Bush administration proposed a prescription to eradicate terror with "democratic transformation". However, “democratization can eradicate terrorism” is a plausible false proposition. In fact, even in those countries that have practiced democracy, terrorism is still inevitable (such as the UK's " IRA ", Spain's " Eta ", etc.). According to the "Global Terrorism Situation" yearbook of the US State Department, between 2000 and 2003, 269 major terrorist attacks around the world occurred in the "free countries" defined by the "Free House", 119 occurred in the "semi-free countries", and 138 occurred in the "unfree countries". In addition to the reason why Middle Eastern countries are "inadequately governed" by terrorism, it is mainly closely related to the United States' long-term dual standards and lack of "international democracy". However, the United States refuses to reflect on its Middle East policy and blindly implements anti-terrorism plans through "democratic transformation" methods. This is tantamount to seeking fish for a tree.
The second is to ignore the local political order and tradition and blindly carry out "national construction", which ultimately leads to the political operation of relevant countries falling into "functional disorder". According to the United States' thinking logic at that time, all societies had to go through the same and universal stage of development, and the United States was at the end of this evolutionary process. Therefore, all other countries can do is to follow the US model, and the US also has a certain "destiny" to rescue and push backward countries to move forward in this direction. If necessary, it can even use interference and high-pressure methods to "export democratic ideals."One of the logical results of this linear thinking is to ignore the rationality of the political traditions and original order of countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason why the original political orders of the above-mentioned countries have been able to continue to this day is because they are the accumulation of local experience in survival and development and are "effective" in maintaining political and social order. The radical democratized prescription provided by the United States completely disrupted the original political order. Since Iraq and other countries do not have civil society and rule of law traditions independent of the state, the collapse of the original political order has collapsed the economic and social order.
The United States originally hoped to help Afghanistan and Iraq complete the "national construction" through "democratic transformation" and build it into a "Model of Democracy in the Middle East", but in the end it went against its expectations. From a theoretical perspective, "national construction" has two meanings: one is the top-down government construction, that is, "state building" in English; the other is the bottom-up "national construction", that is, "nation building". The United States uses "democratization" as a means to achieve "national construction", which is contrary to the above goals at any level. The construction of the regime was originally to continuously enhance the central government's resource acquisition and distribution capabilities, and ultimately form a strong government. However, the democratization policy implemented by the United States has led to the fragmentation of the political territory and the intensification of internal power consumption, which greatly weakens rather than enhances the national capacity. . National construction originally required the people to continuously enhance their sense of community so that all citizens could realize that they were a member of the country. Before the United States invaded, the national construction of Afghanistan and Iraq had not actually been truly completed. Many people's sects and tribal consciousness were far stronger than the national consciousness. Against this background, the competitive democracy promoted by the United States has instead intensified the sectarian and tribal conflicts that were originally in a lurking state in these countries, and the tendency of centrifugality and separatism are rising, and even becoming a failed country. The United States bears an unshirkable responsibility for this.
It can be imagined that in the future, the American think tanks and strategic elites will re-summarize the lessons of "losing Afghanistan" and "losing Iraq" just like they reflected on why they "losing China", "losing North Korea" and "losing Vietnam". The problem is that the United States' strategic reflection has always only considered its own pros and cons, and never cared about the damage caused to third world countries by this hegemony expansion policy and the suffering and feelings of the Third World people who are deeply trapped in humanitarian disasters. This narrow-mindedness and selfish nature determines that the United States will continue to implement the hegemony policy in the future, and this also determines that third-world countries, including China, must always clearly oppose hegemony if they want to truly be independent and develop. (The author is a professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China)
This article comes from [Global Network] and only represents the author's views. National Party Media Information Public Platform provides information release and dissemination services.
ID: jrtt
