While doing some research for a history paper tonight, I came across this political term: Suzerainty. According to Wikipedia, a suzerainty “is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity [the suzerain] which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy but controls its foreign affairs.” I came across it because Romania (which I am researching) was once a tributary to the Ottoman Empire.
The term got me thinking about the American Empire. Couldn’t a case be made that the United States will allow a country to do whatever it wants within its borders, but that it will insert a mighty hand into another sovereign state once it comes to that state’s foreign affairs (even if the United States is not directly affected by those affairs)? If so, doesn’t that open us up to being a suzerain?
Probably not, since it seems that in most cases, the tributary willingly accepts the power of the suzerain (Italy could be considered the suzerain of Vatican City), but what if we allowed an antagonistic relationship between the two? What if, instead of taking an active role of actually crafting the tributary’s foreign policy, the suzerain merely took on a threatening role? Instead of slew of proposals that say “you must do this,” what if it was a small collection of “you must not do thats”?
What if the United States was a suzerain that simply offered a “Ten Commandments of Your Foreign Policy” to every weaker nation on the planet, and said, “Do whatever you want, but do not do these ten things”? Would that be a relatively realistic portrayal of our current situation? Instead of an American empire, are we an American suzerain?
35 Comments
i see what you’re saying… - and it’s true in many instances…
however… - can we go deeper and say that our government - including the executive branch - is actually a tributary to a more powerful entity? - especially this executive branch… - there’s no way that bush is a scholar of foreign affairs - powerful enough intellectually - to tell anybody what they should or shouldn’t do regarding their own foreign policy…
i don’t mean to single the man out - considering you’re talking about america as a whole - but - the strings have to start somewhere…
While I can not fathom how a Yale graduate could not be considered intelligent, we must understand that it is not just bush involved when creating any type of foriegn policy.
I believe Rice is in that role right now as secretary of state. If you have any doubt that she is not qualified you can check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Academic_career
She was a professor of political science at stanford, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies.
I understand we all think we have the answers but at some point we have to acknowledge that not only are these people smarter then us they also have more information then us. Everyone can sit back and say we should be doing this, or we should be doing that, but I bet we do not have 5% of the whole story. I am not saying that we should not question anything, or try and think of better ways of doing things.
I know the president sounds dumb, but does anyone really believe that they know more then him? How about him and his cabinet? I mean the guy graduated from yale and got an mba from harvard and we talk like he went to community college. Thats my rant on that.
In a lot of ways, I totally agree with Justin on his rant. I hate when pundits treat obviously intelligent people like complete morons because of decisions that they have made about things that we all know so very little about. Know, when the truth is revealed and a lot of the information comes out (as it does sometimes, like 50 years later) we can then take stabs at people who are acting in their own self interest and not serving their country to the best of their abilities, but it is very difficult for us to comprehend their competency now, when so much is unbeknownst to us and so little is thrown our way by way of biased media.
Having said all of that, if we didn’t have pundits who are overly critical of obviously smart people in situations where we don’t have all the information, then I’d be damn scared to be in this country. If you take Justins case too far, you end up with a bunch of sheep who blindly follow corrupt leaders into total self serving devastation. I think the worst possible scenario exists when we give our politicians the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, as much as I hate when people trash politicians, it is an absolute must to maintain any semblance of checks and balances, and to maintain what makes this country great. Basically, that some guy (who may or may not have graduated from community college) and is sitting on his but at some dumb job, can create an entire blog devoted to saying how dumb our leaders are. Thats american. for better or worse.
Having said all of that, even giving GW the benefit of a million doubts, the guy just doesn’t give the impression that he is very intelligent…thats not our fault and we shouldn’t have to purposefully try and look at his academic background everytime we see him stammer and blurt out something ridiculous….I mean if a surgeon was about to operate on me and I heard my surgeon talking to someone and he was talking about my surgery the way Bush talks about foreign policy (and other things) I don’t care if there were a million degrees on his wall and a million plaques decreeing his greatness, I would not feel comfortable having him perform my surgery. I’d rather have somebody who sounded and acted intelligent (regardless of pedigree) Does that make sense…maybe, maybe not, but the fact is: Perception is Reality in this world.
thats my rant for the day
I hear ya adam but being a smooth talker should not be the most important thing. IF i was having surgery I would go with the million degrees, and wouldn’t care if the doctor talked like a atlantic city hooker.
But we need people to question, to try to get answers. It is not our fault we do not know what they know, but there is only a small percentage of people that would be able make sense of what they are telling us.
i was talking about the foreign policy of foreign countries…
not coke oil or jesus…
tap tap tap… - is this thing on…
bush may have some information… - more than me - probably… - but isn’t every president knowledgeable to top secret info? - it’s not the information that he has that i’m impressed about… - it’s what he does with it that disgusts me… - yale or no yale - coke or no coke - political family or no political family - A team or F- team - oil or no oil - tax cuts or no tax cuts - katrina or no katrina - leak or no leak - nsa or no nsa - ranch or no ranch - hawk or no hawk…
they’re doing a HELL of a job…
yay…
So a regular joe schmoe would know more about foriegn policy of other countries then a guy who gat a BA in history from yale? Most people in this country couldn’t find Iraq on a map.
How can you judge the job he is doing on foriegn policy if you do not what he knows? If you see a guy punch a kid, you would think that is bad, but what if that guy knew that that kid had a gun and was going to kill someone. Then him punching the kid is justified. Maybe a bad example but you get the point. I just like punching kids.
yeah… - joe’s definitely smarter than bush about those issues… - i know joe… - he’s wicked with a compass…
joe may be regular - and - bush may have an S on his chest - but - i’ll go with joe any day of the week…
this is straying from the topic of suzerainty - slightly…
my bad…
Let me see if I can get this straight.
Dave asked if the administration is being compelled by forces greater than itself. While the President’s intellectual acuity is in question, I think Dave is suggesting that, for lack of a definitive bad guy, the money-men, whoever they may be, are the suzerains in this case, and not “America,” which is comprised of 280 million people, many of whom, as Justin said, “couldn’t find Iraq on a map.”
Now, Justin seems to be suggesting that this administration is intelligent enough to make reasonable (if still incorrect) foreign policy decision. He contends that the President’s resume is worthy of our respect. As with Adam and Dave, I disagree. There is something to be said for having a rich and powerful daddy. However, Justin’s larger point is that smart people work in the administration and they make relatively informed decisions.
But none of that changes my question in the original post. Regardless of who is making the foreign policy decisions, it still seems that the United States (as a player on the global stage) tries to force (economically and militaristically) other countries to make foreign policy decisions based on America’s interests, rather than on their own.
Does this make us a suzerain?
by definition… - yes…
would we still be - if - in the future - we try to fix or alter what this and past administrations have done?
is suzerainty a negative term?
my webster’s definition of suzerain: a feudal lord - a state in its relation to a semiautonomous state over which it exercises political control…
what if it were positive politics doing the controlling? - or no politics at all - but religion - or - what if there wasn’t any countries and we just called it earth? - would there be such a thing as foreign policy?
Kyle do you really believe that you can get through Yale and Havard just because of who your daddy is? That Bush is a real life Billy Madison. Somehow I doubt that. Even if that is true are enough
Back to the question at hand, if we are a suzerain wouldn’t we have to be getting some sort of money from them? Like taxes. Also this country will not let a country do whatever it wants within its borders. If you want to build a nuclear reactor or train terrorists well thats not gonna happen, atleast not without a fight.
What the US has, kind of like the ottomon empire, is the ability to control trade. Every country has to deal with the US if they want to grow, because of this we control their policy towards us. If that makes sense.??
One example of suzerains include Italy over the Vatican, which I expect would be a positive suzerain, but another would be China over Tibet. In the 18th century, Britain recognized China’s suzerainty over Tibet (which is one reason why China claims sovereignty over Tibet in today’s world). Obviously, Tibet wasn’t happy with arrangement then and it isn’t happy with the arrangement now.
Other examples include, as I mentioned, Italy over the Vatican and India over Bhutan. As Wikipedia writes, “Currently India looks after the external, defence, communications, and foreign affairs of Bhutan. This is one of several situations in international politics where two sovereign states agree to have the more powerful administer the defense of the weaker.”
So, to answer you question, I guess it could either way.
On your last question: what if there wasn’t any countries and it was just called earth, would there be such a thing as foreign policy?
I think the answer to that would be “Yes,” but it would describe the relation between the individual and her neighbors.
Oops forgot to finish my first point-are enough smart peole to help.
Justin: Yes. Harvard and Yale are notorious for grade inflation. One of the more difficult things to do at the Ivy League schools is flunk out. To do so is to prove a failure on the part of the college: a failure of its admissions process and a failure of its ability to motivate students to become successful. This is not a secret, nor a conspiracy. It’s just the way it is.
And don’t we get some sort of money from the people we wield our power over? The reason the United States supports globalization is because globalization supports the United States (or at least, its moneyed interests).
Wait, I don’t think Italy controlls the foreign affairs of the vatican and the church.
All ivy league schools inflate to an extent but come on, you are reaching. I am willing to put money that the people who have a BA from yale and a MBA from harvard business school is smarter then 99% of people who went to say Umass(no offense to anyone). But this is an unwinnable arguement because neither of us can prove it one way or another. Lets agree to disagree.
What would be an example of a country that we would be suzerain over? Afghanistan maybe?
you can’t base a person’s intellect on BA’s or MBA’s… - i’d put money on there being a possibility of umass intellectuals or whoever’s’s intellectuals’s - fuck’n red’s diner’s - stomping yale in an intellectual debate… - last i checked - there were still libraries - book stores - and the internet to quench the intellect… - just because you go to yale or harvard doesn’t mean that you’re ultimately smarter than 99% of most colleges or average joe’s… - especially if you’re george…
did you watch the debates in 04? - hilarious - yet - frightening…
There are books everywhere but I am willing to bet there are better teachers at Yale and Harvard. I might of been a little off base with my 99% but my general point is the same. LIke I said this arguement is pointless neither of us really know for sure how smart Curious George is, and even if he is stupid he is surrounded by some pretty smart people.
Just quickly on President Bush as a student before I go make some tacos.
From Wikipedia: “President Bush was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00. Bush has joked that he was known more for his social life than for his grades.”
But if you’re skeptical of Wikipedia, check out this article from The Prospect.
Oh, and as far as not being able to prove it, I linked to article back during the election that was written by one of the President’s college professors. I can’t find it right now (and, as I said, I gotta go make tacos), but the professor basically said that the President was one of the worst students he ever had, that he was almost proud of his ignorance.
I’ll try to find the article later, but if anyone else does, could you link to it here? Thanks.
So a professor commenting on a student he had 30 years ago proves what exactly? I bet there are a couple teachers from high school that would have a good time bad mouthing me, or you, or anyone here except Adam. (kiss ass)
Also there seems to be a lot of grade inflation in the last 20 years at yale, seems it started around the time when bush was there but it was not as bad as today. Oh and he had about the same GPA as Kerry at Yale does that make him stupid?
Unwinnable arguement.
Bush is worm.
Winnable arguement.
Bush is a worm.
Sorry, it’s been a while since I’ve been on the planet.
Still a winnable arguement.
i agree with god…
I know you do David.
I know you do.
I’m not a kiss ass and I just finished reading an article in rolling stone that debates whether Bush is the worst president in history…its funny, because the article brings up (in some ways) all of the stuff we have been saying. I will say that a huge group of historians (both conservative and liberal) basically overwhelmingly agreed that he is the worst president in history. Now, the ultra-conservative argument says that most historians (even the conservative ones) are really liberal anyway..they say it is just the nature of being a historian…might be true, who knows. Anyway, they go so far as to say that William Buckley (who I’m ashamed to say I don’t really know anything about, but apparently he is THE ultra conservative viewpoint in this country) has also agreed that everything about Bush’s presidency has been essentially a complete failure. Its an interesting read…I recommend it.
so maybe none of us could ever do a better job than ‘ol GW, but its (Somewhat)safe to say that any other president in the history of the U.S could probably being doing a better job…
isn’t great when your FI rants end up integrating with your everday pleasure reading.
I would think it would be hard to judge his place in history this soon. I am sure he will not be on rushmore or the 10 dollar bill. Could he really be worse then Nixon? Or Johnson?
That was the question…Is he really worse than Nixon, Johnson, Buchanon (who was supposedly terrible) and Hoover (another apparent dud)
Rolling Stone is a good mag…even if I’m not as up to date with what the kiddies are listening to these days…theres enough other stuff to make it worth getting…kind of like kyles lifetime argument for playboy
I like rolling stones but nobody will be able to tell until 10+ years from now. If iraq turns out to be better, afghanistan continues in that direction, same with egypt then there is no way he would be considered the worst. Even with all that he might be in the lower 10. If Iraq turns into Iran on the other hand….
worst president ever…