Recently, I finished reading of the biography of Kissinger by Walter Isaacson. Isaacson is an excellent biographer (he had completed biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and more recently, Steve Jobs.), who brought out the best of Kissinger and his brand of diplomacy. But what intrigued me the most is its comment on the way that Americans have historically viewed conflicts between nations; as a battle between Good and Evil. Invariably, the American nation saves the world from fascism, militarism, and during the Cold War, communism. This lens of good versus evil is how many Americans have historically viewed the role of the United States in the world.

This have lead me to think about issues of international relations based on this perspective. What is it like to apply this “Good versus Evil” mentality to the world stage? Does this sort of thing apply today, and is there an “evil ideology” or foreign entity that sought to overturn American democracy?

As mentioned before, Americans have traditionally viewed the world through black and white lenses, nations are either good or bad with scarcely any shade in between. As problematic as this may seem firsthand, in fact throughout America’s history, this has not presented problems for its foreign policies. Historically, American foreign policies have shifted between isolationism (it appears currently, we are in a state of isolationism, after years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq), and advent internationalism. In periods of Internationalism, we as Americans tend to think of the world as suffering from an evil that we must save the world from. And throughout much of America’s engagement with the world at large, the enemy does seem evil or capable of inflicting great damage and cruelty; and in the early 20^th century at, does appear to be in great danger. I will list a few examples below:

• Spanish American War: Spain’s oppression against the people of Cuba is indeed extreme, and American intervention (whatever the cause or intention) does succeed in removing the brutal Spanish rule
• World War I: American involvement in the war can be thought of as to end a genocidal conflict resulting from extreme nationalism. So while it might not be a “War to end all wars”, it did end a bloody one more quickly than it might have been otherwise
• World War II: This war is the classic example of the American view of Good versus Evil. Nazism’s evil influence cannot be disregarded or downplayed; without American intervention, it is doubtful that most of Europe and Asia will be free from the tyranny of German or Japanese rule.
• Cold War: the menace of the Soviet Union in Europe cannot be exaggerated, even though, of course, no shooting war actually took place. American presence and intervention indeed secured many governments from revolutionary forces who would have had devastating consequences. (As to what the right-wing governments that the American government had done, that is topic for another day.)

Historically, both foreigners and Americans have characterize American role in the world in such terms as well. David Lloyd George, the prime minister of Great Britain who represented that country at the Paris Peace talks after World War I, even refers to Wilson as Jesus Christ. Ronald Reagan, the American president, referred to the conflict with the Soviet Union in Biblical terms, referencing the war od Gog and Magog.

When applying these ideas to the world at large, this meant that Americans intervened in the world stage after it is convinced that the enemy is evil (of course, there are other considerations as well, but the portrait of the enemy as evil is one of the chief reasons for the intervention, at least that’s the public perception of it).  Nations could be in ranked in the world on a line of good to evil, and nothing captured this better than the label “Axis of Evil” initially applied to Iran, Iraq and North Korea, applied by president Bush and Secretary Rice during their time at the White House.

The reality of the world is far more complex of course. Many nations are what can be called “Freemies”, not exactly friends, but also not exactly an enemy either. Almost all countries can be fit along those lines in the middle, since in one area, they may be considered to be “friends”, such as security, while in other areas they are direct competitors, i.e. the economic sphere. Many are baffled by this contradiction and how to resolve it using diplomacy.

The American public needs to be convinced that the world does not really operate on a principle of “good” vs “evil”, but in large measures are based on interests. Nations cooperate with one another not really because they are “friends”, which will stand by each other through storm and calm. But rather, they are working together because they have a shared interest in seeing each other succeed and that they can get the most out of the international system through working together. Lord Palmerston, prime minister of the United Kingdom, said it well when he stated: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” These are the governing principles of international relations that most of the world adheres too, and if America as a nation are to adapt to the conditions of international relations as it exists currently, we must adhere to this concept. Of course, that is not too say that we should be a hyper-Realist and see the world only in terms of interests and forget our roots in democracy and freedom, but that simply, we need to recognize that this is how the rest of the world operates and if we are a member of this global community of nations, it is in our best interest to be moderate in our thoughts and actions and to see the world not as a black and white image of good and evil, but rather as a collection and patchwork of interests and ideas that needs to be looked into.