Something bothered me in reading a post on the Balkans at Crunchy Con. I've been able to identify two larger problems with its view of international politics:
1. A too-credulous approach to history. Now, I am not one of those who believe national identity to be entirely socially constructed; I do, however, believe that nationalist movements have an interest in appropriating as long as history to their struggle as they dare. Thus you will be interested to know that conflict in the Balkans stretches back to 1389, on the assumption, I take it, that there has been no significant change in group or national identity in the meantime, so one may trace out divisions without a problem (I admit to having only a broad familiarity with the history, but I find any claim to continual identity over a long stretch of time wildly implausible). You may have some trouble with this claim:
"Never content to see a fire without pouring gasoline on it, the Bush administration promptly recognized the new “state” of Kosovo, as did some forgetful European countries. Russia, which may remember history too well, responded by announcing its support for Serbia. Within a week, Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence and the Great Powers’ response to it had set the stage for a classic 19th-century Balkan crisis. A few old fogies may recall that the last such crisis, in the summer of 1914, led to a certain amount of unpleasantness, not entirely contained within Balkan boundaries."
if you happen to remember that the US and 'forgetful European countries' (France and Great Britain, oh so forgetful) opposed Serbia (backed by Russia) twice in the 1990s, without it leading the world back into war. But neither one of those wars counts, you know:
Then, following the eternal Serbian narrative, came more betrayal and defeat. Russia, Serbia’s only Great Power supporter, pulled the rug from under the Serbs and demanded they yield. Why? History may some day find out, but as of now, we don’t know. Rumors of payments to Russian President Boris Yeltsin swirled. Certainly his titles never included “the incorruptible.”
Things are different now, what on account of Putin and all:
When NATO bombed Serbia in the 1990s, Russia was too weak to respond. That is no longer the case. The Russian economy is doing well, flush with petrodollars. Russia’s military, while still somewhat ragged, is in far better condition now than it was then. Most critically, the boozy, corrupt Yeltsin has been replaced by the new Man of Steel, Vladimir Putin. The results of the recent Russian presidential election, where Putin’s handpicked successor won with 70 percent of the vote, show that he has the Russian people behind him.
Leaving aside my skepticism that Putin's successor receiving 70% of the vote is anything like a sign "that he has the Russian people behind him," we can now grasp the historical narrative in total: the situation in Kosovo may lead to world war because the last historical instance of Balkan conflict that we allow to count led to world war.
Also conspicuously missing from the article: any mention of 1917 or communism. If you're going to make a broad historical claim, you might do well to acknowledge that Russia may have drawn some lessons from World War I itself, or its experience of communism and maintaining satellite regimes. Sadly, these options are not contemplated even to dismiss them.
2. Contrast Dreher's approval of the AmCon article with his disapproval of the Absolut vodka-reconquista ad:
Secondly, the reason this ad offends some Americans is more or less the same reason it is attractive to some Mexicans: a sense of grievance and anxiety over territory. If this ad had run 40 years ago, Americans would have been able to laugh it off. Not so much anymore, not with illegal immigration and the Mexification of much of the US Southwest -- which, as the ad indicates, was historically part of Mexico. The ad plays to crude nationalism, but in the Internet era, that can cut both ways. An ad for the Mexican market that depends in some sense on putative Mexican customers' latent hostility to the United States to sell them stuff inevitably will harm the same product's image in the United States, because it associates the brand negatively with American customers' fears.
And: it's easy to laugh at those fears if you aren't living in the Southwest.
So, to be clear: when the irredentism and 'crude nationalism' belong to Mexico, the right thing to do is recognize it and oppose it, and to take seriously the consequences of laughing it off. When they belong to Russia, we should respect their interests and avoid provoking that country, lest we start a war. Which is to say, it seems, that so long as my ox is not the one being gored, it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment