Part One: U.S. strategy in the 21st century: leadership through hegemony
Chapter II: Role and Place of the USA in the Twenty-first Century in the Research of American Political Scientists and Scholars of International Affairs
Hugh De Santis’s Mutualism Concept16
Hugh De Santis is a former high-ranking official in the State Department. He is currently a professor of international security politics and represents the National War College, part of the National Defense University, whose workers are closely affiliated to the Pentagon. His distinctive vision of American security strategy begins with a criticism of a number of schools of thought in American political science.
The schools. Hugh De Santis identifies several schools of thought that, in his opinion, reflect the existing realities inadequately. One is the neo-Wilsonian school, which expects the rational, educated world to absorb the values of liberal democracy. The realist school maintains that the unequivocal power the United States has at its disposal will force the others, in one way or another, to recognize that country’s leadership in the world, the “American Sheriff” standing guard for America’s interests in the world. Comprising the so-called neo-Reaganite school is a group of American nationalists who believe that America has a special mission in creating a peaceful and moral world order. There are also the neoisolationists, some of whom champion the idea that “America is above everything else,” while others (the pacifists) are opposed to the political and economic costs of maintaining the American empire.
On the surface, these schools of thought appear to differ. In reality, all of them are variations on the theme of American exclusivity and proceed from similar convictions about the current international situation.
The Mythology of Unipolarity. This relies on two postulates: (1) Despite the spread of liberal democracy, the world proves to be more complex, unpredictable, and dangerous now than during the Cold War; and (2) “The maintenance of a peaceful and stable international system accordingly depends on the moral and political leadership, if not hegemony, of the United States.”
The first of these postulates is absolutely correct. The second one, about the USA being a world “superpower” establishing peace and order, is doubtful. De Santis thinks so. World development cannot be viewed as a process of Americanization, and this is why:
“First, in contrast to its economic dominance following World War II, the United States no longer possesses the resources to fix the world’s problems. Despite its recent economic vigor, its current share of world production is somewhere around 20 percent, it suffers from a massive trade imbalance, its gold reserves are roughly half that of the European Union (EU), and it is the world’s largest debtor nation. Although there have been gains in worker productivity, the factors that powered the economic boom of the 1990s—corporate downsizing, computerization, reduced health-care costs, and a strong dollar—are not likely to be sustained. America’s ability to police the world, the Clinton administration’s belated defense budget buildup notwithstanding, will diminish.”
Second, the image of global sheriff has not gone down well with the American public—a hotchpotch of special interest groups. Although there is widespread support for the promotion of liberal-democratic values, NATO, and, as the polls reflected in the 1998 crisis with Iraq, selective military strikes, the public remains generally opposed to American intervention to resolve disputes in faraway places perceived to be removed from the daily concerns of Americans.
Third, in the absence of a global threat to peace, the United States is likely to find it increasingly difficult to marshal international support for its policies. Examples include the opposition of the United Nations and key European allies to Washington’s contemplated use of military force against Iraq in 1998 and the initial reluctance of European allies to employ force against Serbia because of its actions in Kosovo.
The Concept of Mutualism. In this connection, De Santis proposes the concept of mutualism, formulated in these words: “Mutualism is an interest-based rather than a norm-centered concept of international relations. It emphasizes regional rather than global approaches to international cooperation, recognizes the continued importance of the nation-state, and is ipso facto a nonhegemonic approach to international security.” It is obviously attractive to politicians when one considers its applicability to burgeoning trends in the economic, social, cultural, and political-military spheres.
The interdependence between economies of different regions and countries demands more active participation of the state in establishing the “rules of the game” to reduce the frequency of financial crashes and rein in the greed and excesses of an unbridled marketplace. The Eurodollar leads to yet another monetary system. “The emergence of the Euro as an alternative reserve currency will not only help countries that trade with Europe to stabilize their exchange rates, it will also lessen America’s burden of being the central banker for the world.”
De Santis draws attention to an important element of his concept, cultural tolerance. “Social and economic integration,” he writes, “cannot be sustained without the constructive participation of the diverse cultures that comprise them. National and international cohesion require sensitivity to different cultural traditions, mores, and values.”
“Besides, can Americans be certain that ours is the only path to a free and harmonious society? In a world of ‘value pluralism’ to use Isaiah Berlin’s term, we must all be tolerant of the political choices others make—choices, it should be emphasized, that are not God-given but are products of different cultural traditions and experiences.”
The mutualism concept envisions the resolution of regional problems on the basis of security and cooperation without involving the USA or the UN. Only when the regional security institutions are powerless to solve a problem should extra-regional powers be involved. Yet, even in this case the USA should not be in a hurry to get involved in every hot spot on the planet.
Therefore, the mutualism concept of Hugh De Santis is actually a variant of the selective involvement concept championed for the most part by scholars who used to work for the State Department.
16 Hugh De Santis, “Mutualism: An American Strategy for the Next Century,” Strategic Forum, no. 162 (May 1999).
The 21st Century: The World Without Russia
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)