America’s restless view of its global role reveals a superpower long on strength yet short on patience, writes MP Simon Hoare
I have not long finished reading A Short History of America from Tea Party to Trump – an informative, slim volume by former editor of the The Times, Sir Simon Jenkins. It is full of interesting snippets of information, and worth a read. A theme he seeks to trace is how America views its role in the world. The early colonists maintained a close interest in Britain’s affairs, not least because they were ‘governed’ by the Crown. Following the War of Independence, the Founding Fathers maintained a determined and deliberate disengagement from the ‘old’ world, as they were the ‘new’. They studiously took no interest in world affairs, and this doctrine broadly held firm until America’s entry in the First World War – but it was short-lived, as their late entry into the Second World War all too clearly demonstrated.
A land, many argued, which was self-sufficient in resources need look nowhere else for its prosperity and security. Monroe and Wilson produced their ‘Doctrines’, but in the post-1945 world, as the British Empire retracted and naval supremacy vanished, America stepped up to be the policeman of the world, positioning itself as the ultimate defender of freedom, sovereignty and democracy.
The rest, as they say, is history – and so well known as not to require regurgitation here.
The really interesting point that Jenkins highlights is the shortness of American patience. He believes this is the reason that the US has never had an empire in the geo-political and administrative sense of that term. Spheres of influence? Yes. Dependent semi-autonomous countries? Yes. But an administrated empire? No.
He contrasts this with Britain’s approach – establish trading links and partnerships; secure a foothold; forge alliances; commit to the long term … and before you know it an empire upon which the sun never set is created. British long-termism and patience, or the tortoise approach, beating the American short-term, in-out, hare.
A moveable feast
I wrote the above the day following the latest US/Israeli attack on Iran, and the concomitant reprisals. Iran (the world’s 17th largest country by land mass and population) sits leaderless and under attack. Are the Middle East – and the world – better without the Supreme Leader? Of course. But to claim it is safer is a little premature.
As we saw recently in Venezuela, the US seemed content to replace a Super Villain President with a Villain President. Mr Putin is without doubt more dangerous and destabilising, yet Mr Trump prefers to play diplomatic footsy with him. While David Cameron was right when he said, in relation to Libya, ‘all because one cannot do good everywhere does not mean you should not seek to do good somewhere’, it should not be a vain hope that there is at least some moral consistency in the approach. With the US, it appears to be a more movable feast. Perhaps Trump takes his lead from another former British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, who declared that Britain had no friends, only interests.
The ordinary, put upon and oppressed Iranian will really not know what to do now. They will remember Iraq’s Marsh Arabs – urged to rise up and be supported by the West, only to do the former, find themselves abandoned by the latter and oppressed violently by those they rose against. Will the Shah-in-exile be dusting off the Peacock Throne? Will America, by the time you are reading this, have gone further? Will the Revolutionary Guards have turned their swords into ploughshares?
Will there be jubilation on the road to freedom in Tehran, or will there be silent anxiety behind closed doors? Hope beaten by experience.
We frankly do not know. The one thing we have to hope is that America, having started something, has the patience to see it through.
Another failed state is something the region cannot afford nor the rest of the world welcome.
