New Anti-Terrorism Strategy Standing on New Historical Horizon
The Obama administration announced a renewed national strategy to combat terrorism. Beginning with the July withdrawal of American troops stationed in Afghanistan, the plan is to reduce numbers there by 33,000 troops by summer 2012. The U.S. is turning the corner towards the gradual end of a series of wars that began with the terrorist attacks centered in the U.S.
Whatever their intention, the breakout of the war and the stationing of U.S. troops brings about animosity amongst the local population that then prepares for the next new war. There was always that side to U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. It is unproductive and goes around in circles. We want the withdrawal to avoid such unnecessary sacrifice.
At the same time, while the new strategy is different from a plan to merely end the war, there is a need to turn our attention to historical factors as well.
Up until now, it has been pointed out that American diplomatic strategy was inconsistent and varied depending on the country. In the case of non-democratically ruled governments, if they were anti-American, they were denounced, but if they were pro-American, problems could be overlooked. There could be military or economic assistance, and the extension of a dictatorship could be forgiven.
In the past, there was South Vietnam and King Pahlavi in Iran. While these are said to be double standards, in all cases there was a side that showed that they [Americans] could close their eyes to dictatorships in order to protect against the spread of Communism. That alone cannot justify the double standard, but there was persuasive power amongst anti-Communists.
However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the foundation for that theory is no more. Nevertheless, America has continued these double standards out of habit, so to speak.
This year’s events, beginning with the Jasmine Revolution, saw a series of old governments overthrown. With the exception of Libya, what they all had in common was that they were all pro-American dictatorships. At first, the U.S. hoped to maintain the status quo, but that gradually turned in the direction of reluctantly supporting the revolutions due to the governments illegally amassing wealth, oppressing its people and exhibiting undemocratic characteristics.
This change in America is a necessary change due to the end of the Cold War. There is no more foundation to permit the double standard.
Looking at it in this context, there is a need for this new strategy. They can say that the route to the withdrawal was not in regards to the other country being pro-American or any other reason.
Taking this into consideration, it is clear which road Japan should take. It should make clear that it would not permit America’s double standard. It should persuade them that it is a mistake to value a country solely based on a humanitarian point of view or the legitimacy of its democracy. Standing on a new historical horizon, I hope for that kind of diplomacy from both the U.S. and Japan.
Whatever their intention, the breakout of the war and the stationing of U.S. troops brings about animosity amongst the local population that then prepares for the next new war. There was always that side to U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. It is unproductive and goes around in circles. We want the withdrawal to avoid such unnecessary sacrifice.
At the same time, while the new strategy is different from a plan to merely end the war, there is a need to turn our attention to historical factors as well.
Up until now, it has been pointed out that American diplomatic strategy was inconsistent and varied depending on the country. In the case of non-democratically ruled governments, if they were anti-American, they were denounced, but if they were pro-American, problems could be overlooked. There could be military or economic assistance, and the extension of a dictatorship could be forgiven.
In the past, there was South Vietnam and King Pahlavi in Iran. While these are said to be double standards, in all cases there was a side that showed that they [Americans] could close their eyes to dictatorships in order to protect against the spread of Communism. That alone cannot justify the double standard, but there was persuasive power amongst anti-Communists.
However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the foundation for that theory is no more. Nevertheless, America has continued these double standards out of habit, so to speak.
This year’s events, beginning with the Jasmine Revolution, saw a series of old governments overthrown. With the exception of Libya, what they all had in common was that they were all pro-American dictatorships. At first, the U.S. hoped to maintain the status quo, but that gradually turned in the direction of reluctantly supporting the revolutions due to the governments illegally amassing wealth, oppressing its people and exhibiting undemocratic characteristics.
This change in America is a necessary change due to the end of the Cold War. There is no more foundation to permit the double standard.
Looking at it in this context, there is a need for this new strategy. They can say that the route to the withdrawal was not in regards to the other country being pro-American or any other reason.
Taking this into consideration, it is clear which road Japan should take. It should make clear that it would not permit America’s double standard. It should persuade them that it is a mistake to value a country solely based on a humanitarian point of view or the legitimacy of its democracy. Standing on a new historical horizon, I hope for that kind of diplomacy from both the U.S. and Japan.
Previous article![]( "Rupert Murdoch Is Protecting His American Dream")
