And based on what I have gathered from both the literature as well as from the professional opinions of certain practitioners of international relations, there is no interest above the national interest. Even our religious beliefs and religious inclinations have to accommodate the national interest and conform to the national interest and in turn suit the national interest. This, however, can only be done through an exhaustive education. After all, it was John F. Kennedy, for instance, who said that the highest authority and loyalty for him was the U.S. Constitution and not the Pope, despite the fact that he was Catholic.
And in addition to our nascent social fabric in the United States is the issue of ‘national consciousness’ from which ‘voluntary separatism’ arises out of certain cultural and religious groups. In Britain, Europe, and the United States, voluntary separatism is most palpable and recognizable amongst Blacks, Jews, and Muslims. In essence, voluntary separatism has a religious rooting based on a strict form of monotheism which is inherent in the history and ‘eidetic memory’ of Blacks, Jews, and Muslims. There are the famous “no-go zones” in Europe where supposedly only Muslims are allowed to enter and where “Sharia Law” reigns supreme and which Trump made popular to a certain extent through his propaganda.
In my personal case, I could not let voluntary separatism stemming out of a strict form of monotheism keep me from advancing the American national interest through my practice of international affairs and international relations. Neither was I ever inclined towards voluntary separatism, given my personality and the freedom which I enjoyed growing up. Moreover, there is the issue of “organic solidarity” versus “mechanical solidarity” which we have discussed before. The former is a form of social solidarity which transcends cultural and religious differences, whereas the latter is a form of social solidarity based on culture and religion. And based on the science, the form of social solidarity which is strongest is the one which transcends cultural and religious differences.
I had relatives who made up the top brass of the Afghan military over the course of the last couple of decades. One of my cousins was the top adviser to the Norwegian mission of NATO in Afghanistan. They were in charge of regional command structures, special forces, as well as capital and presidential security. They were more vulnerable to reprisal and revenge from the Taliban than anyone else. Yet, there were white people in Washington and white talking heads throughout the Western world who were more worried about Afghanistan than I was, and it goes to show that not only has there been an incredibly weak social fabric in America for all these years, but it also demonstrates that America has never been cognizant of its collective national interest.
Furthermore, American foreign policy compounded and exacerbated the dilemma of voluntary separatism amongst these particular communities which in turn fostered extremism and populism amongst these groups. And in response to the exacerbation of voluntary separatism amongst these communities, extremism and populism also arose amongst certain white communities. We can comprehend the full adverse impact of American foreign policy when we become cognizant of how extremism, populism, and voluntary separatism crossed cultural and religious boundaries as a result of American foreign policy over the course of the last few decades. American foreign policy and the rise of extremism, populism, and voluntary separatism amongst a variety of cultural and religious communities are mutually reinforcing and interlinked. Hence, the need to address root causes rather than the symptoms.
Adam A. Azim 