Interpreting Nations

Some years ago I stood in line next to my brother who was to receive the sacrament of confirmation. He was dressed in suit and tie, which was not his custom, and looking into his face, I experienced a sudden realization that while I knew my brother, I did not know him. His face seemed to speak to me of his radical uniqueness and depth of self-hood. I understood then that my idea of my brother would always fall short of the mystery of his identity. Everything I know about my brother could be true, but my knowledge could never exhaust his meaning. Were every person from the first to the final moments of existence able to know my brother and gather together their collective knowledge, still, the idea formed by billions of minds would not contain the total truth of my brother, the fullness of who he is, which eludes, I dare say, even himself.

If our ideas of those we know intimately and well cannot capture their fullness of being, how much more do our ideas of other peoples, other cultures, and other societies fall short? Some historians have questioned the accuracy of speaking of our own national identity , not to mention national identities foreign to us. Ali A. Allawi, a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Iraq and a former Minister of Finance in the post-Hussein Iraq, argues that Iraq has been viewed and interpreted by the US not as it is in-itself, but terms of how it fits into US foreign policy: Iraq as an ally against Soviet expansionism, as in danger of being controlled by the Iraqi Communist Party, as a means to enhance the relative power of Iran, then later as an obstacle against the spread of revolutionary Islam. Allawi thinks we should view Iraq as it truly is and for its own sake, but is it even possible to view and understand a foreign nation as it is in itself?

If it is possible, how do we contain the myriad known facts and the manifold hidden truths within our vision and interpretation? If knowing a nation as it is in-itself is not possible, in what sense can we speak of a foreign policy that is grounded in reality?