[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Duly Noted: Welcoming the New Hegemon George Handlery about the week that was. The replacement of America as the superpower. Being nice with bad guys is dangerous. Ignored conflicts do not just “fade away”. The vicissitudes of making American foreign policy. Iran and Obama. Uncle to the rescue. Is Lithuania protesting too much? 1. Hold it! The hoped for end of the “American Empire” is a promise embedded in Obama’s election and, accordingly, it is greeted with joy. So far, so good. America’s demise implies that her emptied shoes – sorry, “boots” is better – have to be filled. The cheers for the supposedly fading Americans amount to an enthusiastic welcome for the new “Hegemon”. 2. Let us assume for a moment something that is not entirely unlikely. In the interest of “peace”, the US reduces its leadership role. Cheers from home and abroad are to be expected to reward this move. Given the mood of the US this might be interpreted as the precondition of the effort to “restore America’s international standing”. Therefore, the approval of the pollyannic free lunch crowd will be secured. With this accomplished, a question arises. Who will lead from this moment on and where will the marchers be led? 3. The election’s self-generated promise is that a world united by a loving hug with no major (foreign) policy problems is possible. According to this myth, the goal is attainable if only enough flexibility is shown. The illusion is as dangerous as delusions generally are. Being committed to being “nice” and to maintaining peace by yielding to no matter who might earn brownie points. However, the strategy does not invalidate the rule that ignoring challenges undermines the ability to deal with violent threats to ones existence. 4. The conflict you desire to overcome by ignoring it will not go away. From this treatment it will gather some of the strength that might destroy you. 5. The election suggests that many Americans want their government to concentrate on domestic matters and not on foreign policy. It is a good question whether the world can be avoided by declaring it not to be there. Even so, ultimately, the country’s fate will probably be decided in the messy arena of international politics. 6. An American President’s hardest duty follows from having the means and the task to head and defend advanced civilization. At the same time a widespread insular mentality of his constituents feeds on illusions that leave foreign policy competence and achievements unrewarded. The role to be played in this area is complicated by the limited perspective of the electorate. It demands quick solutions in return for limited inputs. This attitude confuses the realities of foreign policy with fast food dispensaries. Thereby disappointment is guaranteed. Its consequence is the threat of the recall of the governor’s mandate and his removal from office. 7. America’s weakness in the realm of foreign policy points at a tendency. It suggests that because of the attitudes and values that prevail in this sphere, the success of foes is allowed to correlate with their preparedness to resort to enduring violence. Regardless of the level of the application of force and of the US’ own means, the tenacity of violence and the length of its demonstrative application will determine ultimate success. 8. The election of Obama will provide Iran with a God sent opportunity. It will be to settle with the new President by exploiting his self-imposed weakness having to pull quickly a few white rabbits from his magician’s hat. In this context, a deal becomes possible that skirts the issue of the occupation of the embassy. The chances are good that Iran will not make use of this chance. Obama’s election could convince Tehran that its outcome is an expression of American weakness. Medvedev’s belated congratulations that were proceeded by symbolic provocations show that this perception of weakness does not presuppose religion-induced insanity. The fulfillment of pre-elections promises, especially the change of course in Iraq where the US might choose to flee from her success, will further collaborate this view. 9. Obama’s election proves that subjectively, ignoring events such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, America is, to many of its citizens, an “island”. In addition to being an isle that therefore enjoys immunity, the US is also a continent-sized country. As the writer likes to put it, America is not a country but a dimension. Living in such a place one is apt to forget that the globe is shared with others. This clouds the perception that these ignored powers can be the source of devastating whirlwinds. Therefore lives are lived with little concern for “outside forces”. Lack of concern with whatever is much beyond ones owns circle is the result. The dearth of regular quality information about the flow of public events is reflected in the composition of what passes as news. When every four years or so a need to choose the captain – or face a crisis – arises, the decision is made based upon trivial and spotty data. In the case of the election behind us many voted as though with the ballot world politics could be suspended and terror’s war on the US –and others – be terminated by canceling the “subscription to Bush. The hope is that with this, and some good behavior proven by leniency and dialogue with radicals, the isolation of earlier times can be restored. Oddly enough, the mixture of unconcern, localism and well cultivated refusal to acknowledge the foe’s agenda are also well represented outside the US. Europe’s mutants of this differ from the analogous American practitioners of ostrich-politics. These assume that, if all fails, the US will bail them out. Regrettably for America, she lacks the kind uncle to rescue her in case that her peril outgrows her own means. 10. The cat is coming out of the sack. Quite carefully a rumor is spread to test and to prepare the ground for action. It relates to the planned stationing in Poland and the Czech Republic of a rocket defense system against rogue-force attacks. The project, one hears, might be cancelled. Russia, with thousands of offensive missiles opposes the setting up of a defensive system with about ten rockets. If this happens, the US will look disfigured. Just think this through. Two friendly countries were encouraged to rsist Moscow’s pressure. The numbers reveal that Kremlin is not concerned by its own security but wishes to exercise suzerainty over what had been its proprietary “zone” in Soviet times. If she chooses to cut and run, the US will have compromised and then abandoned allies by not holding out against what Prague and Warsaw dared to defy. Credibility now, and the ability to act later, will be compromised. The cherry on the cake: rogue states or their surrogates see, thanks to the lack of preventive means, the likely use of their WMDs enhanced and facilitated. 11. Practical Appeasement 101. The Russian-Georgian conflict has interrupted the negotiations the Europeans had with Moscow about a security “partnership”. Now that enough time has passed for the fires to go out and for the bodies to become cold, time seems to have come to return to business as usual. Initially, several countries did not wish to continue the negotiations. After a campaign to pressure these with an intensity to which Russia would never be exposed, the refusing camp was reduced to Lithuania. In theory, a minority of one would have normally sufficed to derail the project. Nevertheless, on October 10 the decision to continue the EU’s partnership talks could be made. The reason is in the language defining the situation. Originally, the talks were only “interrupted” but not broken off. New negotiations would have required unanimity. For continued negotiations, a majority sufficed. The solution is ingenious. You can expect the Kremlin to draw conclusions from the case regarding the sincerity of their opposite party’s lip service given to its high-sounding ideals. Socialism and capitalism share a weakness. It is the fallibility of their economic actors. Once the consequences of this flaw unfold, we enter the zone of differences. Where capital, enterprises and their management is private, the laws imposed by politics or the measures of shareholders can be made to apply. Even if it generally happens after the fact, most of the impostors are apprehended and chastised. In socialism, economic power being welded to political power, such interventions are rare as they are not anticipated and therefore are not incorporated into the system. At this stage, a further difference emerges. Abuses in capitalism are aired as democracy allows its press to create scandals. In socialism, this is unlikely to happen – except when in a power struggle a fraction needs reasons to purge its competitors.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||