Staring Power in the Face

Fourth Quarter 2002

by Jonathan Chaplin

As a British citizen living in Canada, with family connections in The Netherlands, and visiting the United State regularly, I am continually struck by the stark divergences of viewpoint regarding the deployment of U.S. power across the globe today. Those divergences have sharpened since 9/11. A strong response to 9/11 is, for many Americans, both a necessary act of self-defense and a courageous act of global leadership, exposing, as some see it, the vacillation and timidity of the Europeans and Canadians. By contrast, many in Canada and Europe, notwithstanding their shared outrage at the terrorist attack, see the U.S. response as another example of impatient and belligerent American unilateralism.

These North Atlantic differences need to be further relativized by the profoundly discordant perceptions of people in nonwestern locations. I am not referring here to the desperate, visceral denunciations of U.S. power on the so-called "Arab street." Listen, for example, to this plea from a respected Sri Lankan evangelical leader, Vinoth Ramachandra (author of Gods That Fail—InterVarsity Press, 1996).

Listening for Voices from Abroad

"Even as I write," says Ramachandra, "the U.S. Senate is debating a likely war against Iraq, the next stage of the fraudulent and hypocritical 'war against terrorism.' Are there any Christian voices speaking into that debate? From my location in south Asia, the only 'Christian' voices we hear in the media are the self-proclaimed builders of the new world order, namely Tony Blair, George Bush... and a few others .... I cannot describe how painfully embarrassing this is to Christians living in predominantly non-Christian societies who wait in vain for other more genuine, Christian voices in the U.S. and Britain to be heard in public debate."

Does it matter that worldwide Christian perceptions of U.S. power are so deeply at odds with those of so many Americans? Yes, it matters, particularly if Christians throughout the world are to pay more than lip-service to the idea that they are members of the one "body of Christ." Surely Christians everywhere should be striving, as far as possible, to discern a common "mind of Christ" on such urgent matters. There is, I suggest, a pressing need for an intentional, international Christian dialogue on the cluster of issues surrounding the global role of the U.S. Let me add that Christians should want this not only for the sake of Christian unit); but to equip themselves better to advance the kind of principled international public dialogue without which the world may slide even further into hostile tribalisms.

Such a dialogue would mean, in the first instance, that Christians in the U.S. would be attentive to critical Christian assessments of American power coming from beyond U.S. borders, especially from nonwestern sources like Ramachandra. For example, the dialogue should also include Iraqi Christians, some of whom may well express qualified support for U.S. military intervention. (There are an estimated four million Iraqi exiles, about one-sixth of Iraq's population.) Support for, as well as opposition to, U.S. intervention must surely be taken seriously, especially by those who, like me, are currently firmly opposed to any such intervention on account of the risk of serious regional destabilization.

By the same token, Christians outside the West need to listen carefully to a range of thoughtful Christian voices from within the U.S. without prejudging that those voices represent only so many variations on the theme of American imperialism. This diversity was recently brought into the open by a letter to President Bush signed by many prominent American evangelical leaders, urging a less partial approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While a global Christian dialogue must be a two-way conversation, with all parties open to agonizing reappraisals of their perceptions, we should not delude ourselves that parity will exist among conversation partners. At the start, the dialogue must recognize the immense inequality of power—with overwhelming American superiority—among the countries in which dialogue partners live. The old cliché that when America sneezes, Europe catches a cold should be updated to read, When America turns over in its sleep, the whole world tumbles out of bed.

Disproportionate Power

The extent of American power can be exaggerated, of course, and the different dimensions of that power—military, diplomatic, economic, cultural—need to be carefully disentangled. Despite the preeminence of American capitalism, it does not single-handedly control the global economy. Despite the supremacy of its media and communications industries, the U.S. has not eradicated the world's diverse national and regional cultures. Despite the global reach of its military forces, the U.S. pursues no territorial ambitions.

Moreover, much of what the U.S. does globally is constructive and well intentioned. While the European Union dithered over Kosovo, the U.S. took the lead in resisting Milosevic's relentless aggression. Without similar leadership, Kuwait would still be under Saddam's heel (winch is not to say that the prosecution of that campaign should not be critically scrutinized). It is hard to imagine how post-communist Russia could have gradually been integrated into the international community without U.S. leadership. Europeans who chide the U.S. for its global dominance should perhaps spend more time working to create European and international institutions capable of providing effective global leadership when it really matters, and generating the attitudes and resources (including military capability) required to make that happen. In the absence of such leadership, the global geo-political power vacuum will-—and at times must—be filled by the U.S.

American dominance of all internationally significant sectors of power cannot currently be gainsaid by any other national, regional, or global entity. The U.S. cannot do whatever it wants, but it can, and often does, get its way. Historically, nations that can get their way usually try to do so, at least where "vital national interests" like secure oil supplies are at stake. Whatever else they do, and whatever good they do, powerful nations also tend to become bullies (as Britain did in the 19th century). And often they do not know when or whom they are hurting. As Timothy Garton Ash recently put it, "The main problem with American power is not that it is American .... No, the main problem is the power itself. It would be dangerous even for an archangel to wield so much power."

Consequently, the first requirement of a constructive global Christian debate is for American Christians to stare their own power in the face—to acknowledge the monumental asymmetry that characterizes international relations today. Such an acknowledgment would show itself in a stance of due modesty and carefulness, of critical self-reflectiveness, as Christians reflect on globally significant American decisions, whether over trade negotiations, international criminal justice, or armed intervention. This stance amounts to much more than agreeing with Joseph Nye (in The Paradox of American Power) that the U.S. should deploy more "soft" power and not only "hard" power. Soft power (economic and diplomatic) can also be used to advance narrow national interests rather than global justice.

Dialogue in Process

My main point is not to emphasize means or even the principle of global justice, but rather to stress process. Real dialogue implies that Americans need to listen especially to the voices of those who will be most impacted by American action or inaction. President Bush's absence from the Earth Summit in Johannesburg sent precisely the wrong signal in this respect. Discerning the requirements of global justice demands participation in the dialogue by all concerned.

One long-standing tradition of Christian reflection on international order—the "natural law" tradition—rightly asserts the universality of binding principles of international justice. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the process of discerning those binding principles must have a universal character—it has to flow from a truly global dialogue. Universal participation in the process must be a presupposition of any effort to formulate a set of criteria of international justice capable of winning the confidence of those outside the West. No naive Wilsonianism follows from this. Not every international voice has equal value. I'm not arguing for liberal neutrality writ large. Rather, I am arguing for a concerted effort to minimize the marginalization of vulnerable parties—to redress a glaring disparity of deliberative power.

The U.S. Constitution is founded on the principle of the wide distribution of political power. The principle is shaped by the profoundly Christian perception that large concentrations of power of any kind, anywhere, are liable to be abused and so should be curtailed. The constitution rightly applies this principle to time institutions of central government. When applied to the international order the same principle surely challenges the current massive asymmetry in the distribution of global political power, and points to the need for an increasingly robust network of international and transnational political institutions capable of redistributing deliberative power in the interests of international justice.

Christians who, as an international body, claim a higher loyalty to Jesus Christ than to their national identities and governments should be well-placed to contribute to such a dialogue and process. A global consultation, drawing in Christian voices from many different locations to examine the role of American power in the world, might be a timely way to help all of them make a greater contribution to the process.

[Dr. Chaplin is Associate Professor of Political Theory at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto.]