The Wall Isn't New: It's Just Not Metaphorical Anymore

AUTHOR // LUCY PENNINGTON

Throughout America’s history of ‘independent internationalism’, the aim of US foreign policy has been to reap the economic benefit of international participation but remain politically extricated from international crises. US domestic and foreign policies aim to recoil from all foreign ‘threats’ to their democratic system. Over time, these perceived ‘threats’ have appeared under the guise of 1920s’ progressivism, communism, Islam and immigration - all of which were met with an equal yet opposite display of restrictive power to deplete their tainting of ‘traditional’ American values. ‘The Wall’ isn’t new: it’s just not metaphorical anymore.

President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is the physical manifestation of centuries of US self-interested interventionism, behind the façade of isolationism and protectionism. ‘The Wall’ reflects the century-old contradictory aspiration to remain economically in the world and politically out of it. Trump’s measures are drastic, but his ideals are not unexpected when evaluated in light of his historical context, where political isolationism is a key thread woven into the American political psyche.

Historically, America contributed to international affairs where it was self-beneficial. However, they tend to do so from behind their political wall. This is especially seen in the First World War, where the US joined the Allies not only because of President Woodrow Wilson’s internationalist beliefs, but also because of their economic ties to the Allied forces and the obvious benefits of involvement in the post-War treaty process. With Europe in crippling debt, America’s emergence as the newfound hegemony following the War brought increased economic responsibility. However, desiring to stay out of another war and distance themselves from polemic or detrimental international affairs, America built their wall.

In the late 1920s to early 1930s, the wall manifested as conservatism. Three consecutive Republican Presidents exponentially raised tariffs to protect US business from foreign competition, economically extricating the US from international markets. This was similarly reflected in social policy, where harsh immigration restrictions were put in place. But from their entrance into the War in 1917, the conservative, stringent policy of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), ordering Europe to ‘mind its own business’, could no longer act as the cornerstone of US foreign policy. By negating the hegemonic responsibility to stimulate international trade, the US fell into the Great Depression, proving their economic wall ineffective – as the American capitalist system relies heavily on international consumer markets in order to thrive. ‘The Wall’ isn’t new; we’ve seen it before, just not in the physical way we see it today.

Economic and political protectionism is not a sin, it only becomes such when protecting one’s own interests eclipses the genuine humanitarian needs of others, domestically or internationally. This was apparent in the Great Depression, where large groups of society suffered as a result of an economic ‘Wall’. It is contemporaneously seen through Trump’s inability to comprehend the sincere needs of those immigrating to the US out of necessity. Here is where the lines between patriotism and nationalism become dangerously blurred, and this is where Trump presently resides.

Even when the United States intervenes in international affairs, especially in the Middle East and Latin America, it does so from behind a wall. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a pro-communist puppet government, the US was vehemently opposed. With communism as the primary ‘enemy’, posing a revolutionary threat to US democracy, any country aligning themselves with communist ideals was to be kept on the other side of their wall. As such, the US covertly supplied arms to the Islamic Mujahideen, a loosely aligned group of opposition rebelling against the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, as they shared a common enemy with the US. When a war-torn Afghanistan was no longer useful as a Cold War chessboard and in desperate need of foreign aid to rebuild infrastructure, the US put up a wall. No reciprocation. Humanitarianism yields to egocentricity at this historic turn. The Islamic extremist groups born out of the rebels they supported, were now the enemy. ‘The Wall’ isn’t new; those who are on the other side just change over time.

The US has always felt a responsibility to ‘protect’ Latin American nations from foreign influence by supporting authoritarian dictatorships that serve their own interests. From the ‘big brother’ mentality espoused by the Monroe Doctrine, the US adopted a clear strategy of assuming a sovereign role in the Western Hemisphere. Despite this underlying aim, the Good Neighbor Policy era under Franklin D. Roosevelt promised contrary non-interference in domestic exchanges and a reciprocal, albeit short-lived, relationship with Latin America. The beginning of the Cold War saw the total rejection of communism, culminating in a departure from the policy and the micromanagement of Latin American politics to quell the growing influence of communist beliefs. Once again, a wall was built against communism, moving into an era bereft of reciprocal relationships between the continents. From the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, to the CIA subversion of dictatorships in Chile and Nicaragua, the US intervened in international affairs to ensure the abolition of foreign influences in surrounding countries, aiming to quell their ability to penetrate their wall. ‘The Wall’ isn’t new. Its methods have changed, but its purpose remains the same.

All of this is not to negate the good work of many United States Departments and politicians, who work tirelessly to foster positive relations with other countries. This includes the role of the US in the United Nations and the numerous NGOs working towards reciprocation amongst the contemporary discourse between the US and Mexico. However, ‘The Wall’ is dangerously close to eclipsing all mediation. In the midst of a government shutdown, furloughing hundreds of thousands of government employees, this is the longest outburst in US history. If Trump successfully attains his proposed $USD 5.7 billion for the border wall, it will be a colossal waste of government funds; but it will not be new. It will be detrimental to relations between Mexico, Latin America and the US; but it will not be new. The Trump Era resides in the threshold between the past and future for America’s place as the hegemony, and what happens now will play a significant role in what is found on the other side of the wall.

‘The Wall’ isn’t new – but with the entire country at a stalemate, whatever happens next, will be.