We must all worry about Barak Obama dragging us into the middle of the Syrian conflict. This globalist politician has justified this possibility with ‘human rights’ rhetoric. Knowing the difference between nationalist and culturist foreign policy, on the one hand, and globalist human rights policy, on the other, will aid our efforts to stop America’s entry into this Muslim civil war.
Obama has been discussing attacking Syria’s government because we should not tolerate the violation of “international norms.”[i] His ally, the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, said the “world should not stand by” as the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against its own people.[ii] As globalists – equally concerned with all parts of the planet – both Obama and Cameron want to fight in Syria to protect human rights and internationalism.
The looming strike on Syria could be denounced from both nationalist and culturist premises. The American nationalist perspective is a fine doctrine wherein we only fight when America’s national security is threatened. Culturist foreign policy would have us protect our friends as well. In this culturism is slightly more belligerent than nationalism. But, the ‘human rights’ foreign policy justification that Obama suggests requires us to go to war every time someone’s ‘human rights’ are violated.
‘Human rights’ is a vague phrase; it certainly doesn’t refer to American interests; it doesn’t even refer to the survival of the West; in fact, it is culturally neutral. Whereas globalist human rights advocates see no borders, culturists see the world as divided along cultural lines. Furthermore, culturism sees these sides as being in competition. Syria, from a culturist perspective, is on the Islamic side; whereas America is on the western side.
Culturism, again, flatly rejects globalism while augmenting the nationalist perspective. From a purely nationalist perspective, America and Britain have nothing in common. From a culturist perspective, these two nations share a common identity as a part of the West. Thus culturism provides the West with a parallel concept to the Islamic concept of “Ummah,” (meaning larger Islamic community that transcends nations); culturism transcends our national borders.
Culturist foreign policy is based on protecting the West. If Australia, for example, were being attacked by an Islamic nation, strict nationalists would argue that America stay neutral (Australia and America are different nations). From a culturist perspective, western nations should protect each other as they are culturally linked. Additionally, western culturists argue that when Christian minorities in Islamic nations are being killed - if we have the means – we should consider protecting them. Thus, culturists would have American nationalists consider “western interests.”
In reality, culturists and nationalists often agree upon American interests. Whereas strict nationalists might stay isolationist as Muslims attacked another western nation, many nationalists would not. But globalists’ human rights foreign policy is anathema to both American nationalists and culturists. Human rights globalists would have us disregard parochial considerations such as American or western interests. Again, this very week globalist politicians are seeking to draw America into a Muslim civil war to protect human rights.
Culturists and nationalists must unite against the proposed globalist war in Syria. American nationalists must tell the public that Syria’s civil war has nothing to do with our nation. America cannot go further into debt to protect non-American “global citizens.” Culturists must remind the powers-that-be that Muslims are our enemies in the clash of civilizations. Moreover, culturists must point out that the Syrian rebels have been attacking Syria’s Christians.
United, American nationalist and western culturists can stop the proposed globalist military action in Syria that Obama is launching in the name of global human rights.