Mark Makela/Getty Images
frFrench
L'internationalisme libéral appartient-il au passé ?
Mar 6, 2017 Tony Smith
MEDFORD – Il y a cent ans ce mois-ci, le président américain Woodrow Wilson était confronté à la décision difficile de l'entrée dans la Première Guerre mondiale. Quelques mois plus tôt, il avait obtenu la réélection en faisant notamment campagne sur une politique de neutralité, qu'il s'apprêtait désormais à abandonner, de même que son slogan « America first ». Aujourd'hui, pour la première fois en plus de 80 ans, un président américain reprend cette formule, en promouvant toutefois une politique étrangère directement contraire à la doctrine adoptée par Wilson.
Ce n'est qu'en 1919, après la fin de la guerre, que Wilson définit sa vision d'un « internationalisme libéral » en matière de politique étrangère, consistant à soutenir la sécurité collective et l'ouverture du marché entre les différentes démocraties, le tout régulé par un systèmes d'institutions internationales en fin de compte dépendantes des États-Unis. Bien que le Sénat américain rejette dans un premier temps la vision de Wilson, et notamment son soutien à la Sociéte des Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt parvient à ressusciter l'internationalisme libéral après 1933. Cette conception a depuis contribué à façonner la politique étrangère des présidents américains successifs – jusqu'à l'arrivée de Donald Trump.
L'approche trumpienne de l' « Amérique d'abord » combine mépris de l'OTAN, condescendance à l'égard de l'Europe, et raillerie du leadership de l'Allemagne en Europe. Elle se caractérise également par le rejet de l'ouverture économique, Trump ayant décidé d'exfiltrer l'Amérique de l'accord de Partenariat transpacifique, et appelé à la renégociation de l'Accord de libre-échange nord-américain. Le nouveau président a par ailleurs promis de désengager l'Amérique de l'accord climatique de Paris.
Tony Smith is Professor Emeritus of political science at Tufts University. His latest book is Why Wilson Matters: The Origins of American Liberal Internationalism and Its Crisis Today.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 8, 2017
Tony Smith wonders if "liberal internationalism" is dead and describes where America stood exactly a century ago when Woodrow Wilson was "agonizing over whether to enter World War I." Initially he sought to maintain "his policy of neutrality" after the outbreak of the war and won the re-election in 1916 on the slogans - "He Kept Us Out of War" and "America First". But the German policy of submarine warfare, which included the targeting of American shipping, forced the country to declare war in April 1917.
More than any of his predecessors, the 28th president was responsible for increasing American involvement in world affairs. In 1919 Wilson became the father of "liberal internationalism" - "support for collective security and promotion of open markets among democracies, regulated by a system of multinational institutions ultimately dependent on the United States." Even though "the US Senate initially rejected his vision, particularly his support for joining the League of Nations," his idealism led to its creation.
Wilson's three consecutive successors - Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover - veered away from his foreign policy course until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. FDR "revived liberal internationalism after 1933. It has helped to shape the foreign policies of most US presidents ever since – until Trump," whose "America first" slogan "directly controverts the doctrine Wilson embraced." Moreover Trump "seems to see no value in maintaining and deepening ties with other democracies." So true is the saying: "Birds of a feather flock together" and he seems "drawn to authoritarian leaders - in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin...."
The author believes, should Wilson be alive today, he and Trump would find something to agree on, while disagreeing on the rest. He might even advise Trump to focus on one issue and endorse another. Yet it's difficult to compare the two: Wilson was a Democrat, while Trump is not a normal Republican. In fact he is an opportunist and happens to have a very strange voting history. He had been a Republican three times, a Democrat once, a member of the Independence Party once and, for a brief period, had no party identification at all.
Trump is a callous, greedy business and runs the country like his business, seeking to maximise gains and minimise costs. His idea of "making America great again" is to turn inward, upending its international treaties and commitments with overseas allies and demanding them to pay for its services. "Wilson, by contrast, wanted to spread democracy for the sake of world peace, but.....working through the League of Nations. He believed that international institutions, the rule of law, common values, and an elite possessed of a democratic vision could ensure collective security and peaceful conflict resolution. What would begin as Pax Americana, he believed, would ultimately become a Pax Democratica."
The author says "this vision lies at the root of American "exceptionalism" - a claim as Bill Clinton put it - that used to make America the "indispensable nation," in the international community. Trump's inauguration speech portrayed his bleak outlook for the country and justified its "narrow self-interest". He lacks political acumen and has no desire "to sustain an international order that supports peace, cooperation, and prosperity, particularly among the world's democracies."
History in the 20th century shows that the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War "impelled US policymakers to embrace liberal internationalism." The author says "a tumultuous world is likely to vindicate its deep and enduring appeal," even though a rising China and a resurgent Russia have been seeking to defy this global order in recent years. Challenging times lie ahead of us.
Paul Griesbach Mar 7, 2017
Human dignity will remain a future goal as long as the abundant supply of cheap disposable labor outpaces the demand for it.
John Jones Mar 7, 2017
What is the point of half the world being liberal/democratic (and also having a booming arms trade!) while the other half is totalitarian and brutal, willing to countenance horrendous war crimes to further what it regards as its own ends. The time has long gone for the whole world to come to heel in order protect the planet - the only one we all have = and to guard the human rights of every human being. We desperately need the structures which could enable this. The UN as at present is crippled by its own 'Security Council'.
Steve Hurst Mar 6, 2017
Is this the same America that turned down J M Keynes request as emissary for the UK Government for an emergency loan to stop the UK going bust after WW2, that only later moved to the Marshall Plan in paranoid fear of communism sweeping thru Europe, with an America-Anglo Loan resulting only recently cleared by the UK in 2006. Is this the America that ended up holding 50% of the worlds gold at the end of WW2. That then moved to being a 'military industrial complex' to paraphase Eisenhower and engage in apparently never ending war. Is this the America that had IBM contracting with the Nazis to identify Jews. Exceptionalism my backside. Is this the America that in a 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children. That Fat Boy bombed Nagasaki basically as a demonstration piece. By all means justify it that is up to you, but do not claim it was a wonderful era of liberalism
stephan Edwards Mar 6, 2017
This isn't 1918 Professor, times have changed a great deal. multilateral processes involving capital, technology and jobs have very little to do with democracy and a whole lot to do with corporations. I am no fan of Trump didn't vote for him. but if you believe that there is any chance what so ever of Universal health care, quality education or infrastructure development, then you should leave the ivory tower and look around. People voted for Trump not because believed him but because they hated the status quo that much. Yes professor Liberal Internationalism is very very very DEAD! It has been replaced with corporate internationalism. What is good for the corporations and donors is the only thing that matters to either party. Internationalism's appeal to who? In the US only the rich and connected. After watching most of the decent jobs shipped to Mexico and China, Being forced to train our own H1B replacements from Mumbai, We have NO faith in your Liberal Internationalism all it's done is Sodomize us for the benefit of the rich and connected!!!!!!
https://prosyn.org/iI3dM5Vfr