YBP.com - Home

Meeting the Enemy: American Exceptionalism and International Law
Author: Natsu Taylor Saito
Publisher: New York University Press
$55.00 Cloth (374 p.)
ISBN: 9780814798362
B&T MAJORS YBP

“[We] shall be as a city upon a hill”
--Puritan minister John Winthrop, 1630

Within the United States, a sense has developed that there is one path to human progress, epitomized, in general, by western civilization and, in particular, by American values. Further, this concept allows the U.S. to exempt itself from obligations to which other countries are naturally bound. This stems from an innate belief, developed over time, of superiority in several aspects. Specifically, it stems from a culture that believes that Anglo-Saxons are innately superior; that Protestantism is the one true way; that republics are the only free form of politics; and that the U.S. is justified in attempting to civilize the “lesser” regions of the world, to make them more in its own image.

Natsu Taylor Saito seeks to explain the American attitude toward American exceptionalism. To demonstrate this, she traces the history and development of the practice of American exceptionalism from the earliest colonization in 17th century to the present day. Focus is placed on legal precedents that are backed by a sometimes contradictory concept of moral superiority.

The book opens with a discussion of the "War on Terror" as understood by the administration of George W. Bush. There, Saito describes some of the attributes that mark this war: a concept that the enemy is “evil;” that war is an appropriate response to terrorism; that the standard rules of engagement don’t apply; that civilization, freedom and democracy are at stake; and that there is only one path to human progress, epitomized by the American model.

The terms, as they are understood, cause conflict with standard war models. For example, war can be declared on groups that aren’t sovereign states; the presumption that the enemy is “just plain evil” obviates the need to understand their motives, and so forth. The final attribute, the U.S. as pinnacle of human progress, seems to underlie justification for all the others, and it is this attitude that Saito wishes to explain.

Going back to the Plymouth colony of 1620, Saito describes a group, believing themselves to be “chosen by God,” arriving in a New World, already inhabited by Indians. Originally, the Puritans tried to share the land; ultimately, however, their need for more eventually won out. The Puritans’ original justification for expanding territory was that the land was being underutilized by the Indians, an argument which had been previously used by Elizabethan England to allow commercial ventures in Ireland. The foundation of the argument to the original case was that the Irish were “savage,” which implication was carried over to the Indians.

Colonists also declared some lands “vacant,” as they could then claim territorium res nullius, a Spanish doctrine which allowed legal claim to uninhabited lands. The argument that some lands were “vacant and uninhabited,” while not exactly true, soon became more accurate over time due to diseases brought by the colonists. The depopulation of Indians in this way was perceived by some of the colonists as manifest destiny. One colonial governor said that the work of God could be seen in the depopulation of the Indians, to make room for the English colonists.

Texas independence and America’s annexation of Texas followed a similar belief in superiority. Anglo-Americans began to settle in the Texas region of Mexico after Mexico’s declaration of independence from Spain. These recent settlers were uncomfortable with Mexican law, especially after Mexico abolished slavery in 1829. When uprisings began in the northern territory Mexico’s government conducted a study, led by Manual Meir y Terán. The Terán Commission determined that the “American way” was, in brief: to colonize an area regardless of who owns it; grow those colonies; disturb the political economy; start insurrections; then seek either diplomatic or military means to take over the region.

After hearing this, Mexico forbade further immigration, but Anglo-Americans kept coming, regardless. Less than a year later, Sam Houston began leading insurrections, which began the Texas Revolution. A decade later, the U.S. annexation of Texas incited Mexico to start the Mexican-American War, which America ultimately won. Part of Mexico’s secessions included the less populated northern territories, which suited the U.S.; Saito states that the U.S. was reluctant to incorporate so many “people of color” at once.

Around the turn of the century came the closing of the frontier, and the U.S. no longer had any areas to which it could expand. Thus, the U.S. began to look toward colonization as an “expansion model.” Several extensions by the U.S. into the Caribbean and the Asian Pacific were justified by bringing civilization to uncivilized, “savage” people.

The Philippines, in particular, have come to epitomize the historical attitude the U.S. has carried toward foreign relations. The Philippines declared independence from Spain in 1898, but it was not recognized before it became one of the “concessions” to the U.S. by Spain in the Treaty of Paris that year. Here, Saito mentions the (apocryphal) story of McKinley pacing the floor and praying “night after night” over what to do about the Philippines, until “Almighty God” told him that, essentially, it was the duty of the U.S. to “educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them.” Whatever happened, by early 1899 the American-Philippine war had begun. The same people that had established their own government after Spain left were now fighting the U.S. for the right of self-determination.

The U.S. perspective regarded this as impossible. Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana was no opponent of American imperialism. He remarked that, despite two U.S. naval reports to the contrary, he could not believe the Filipinos to be capable of self-government, basing his opinion primarily on the “oriental quality of their blood;” yet another example of belief in the inferiority of non-white races.

After World War II, the era of the U.N. and international standards began. Even now, the U.S. still effectively carries the “psychological baggage” from its foundations, in that it continues to consider itself exempt from international treaties, for the unspoken reason that it holds itself superior. This is seen, for example, in the recent Iraq War of 2003. When the international community did not take decisive action, the U.S. administration decided to strike forth on its own. Again, one rationale for continuing this war, once the search for weapons of mass destruction was dismissed, was that is was for “democracy.” It was a mission to “civilize the savage.”

This work, while densely researched, is also densely written, and much of the detail in the history of America’s foreign policy is pointed toward the legal philosophy justifying it. That said, researchers who don’t mind a more in-depth look at American history will find this book useful.

-- Todd Doherty