America and Global Order
Is U.S. domination necessary for world order? Dick Cheney, the former American vice president, continues to insist so. This neoconservative architect of policy in the George W. Bush era claims that the current resident of the White House is getting it wrong. Is he?
Mr. Cheney’s article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “The Collapsing Obama Doctrine” serves to remind us of the alarming turns the world can take when led by a misguided primary world power. It also accentuates the point to which changes in U.S. government affect its foreign policy. While the zephyrs of administration change do not disturb the defense of its fundamental interests, the method of doing so can shift radically.
Mr. Cheney, the man who governed the U.S.A. during the Bush years, would have us believe that the dramatic resurgence of Salafist jihadi movements in the Middle East is attributable to the culpable inaction of the White House and its current resident’s preference for talking to enemies rather than bolstering allies. The former vice president would also have us believe that the Iraq war begun in 2003 achieved its aims: Those of reinforcing America’s global leadership and stopping al-Qaida.
As the European accomplices of this neoconservative policy are getting their voices back—not least Tony Blair, who recently published a frankly pathetic article in the press— it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of certain facts concerning the American intervention in Iraq: No war since Vietnam has damaged the American leadership to such an extent; the intervention’s primary beneficiaries have been Shi’ite Iran and Communist China, now the world’s primary importer of Iraqi crude oil; Iraq, free from Salafist fighters before 2003, is now the epicenter of the jihadi movement, which, having flooded into Syria, is now reentering Iraqi lands; the Bush regime, by overthrowing a tyrannical regime on a false pretext, has besmirched the idea of liberty; lastly, the democracy implanted into Iraq has proved itself to be a failed state, due to the simple fact that it wasn’t born of an aspiration of the Iraqi people, but imported by bombs.
We might also mention the cost of this war—$35 000 of spending per American household—and the subsequent weakening of the U.S.A., or the number of Iraqi civilian victims—500,000 according to certain counts. It is in the light of this disaster that Barack Obama’s foreign policy, especially in regard to the Middle East, must be judged.
His approach is antithetical to that of Dick Cheney. He wants to understand before acting, persuade rather than dictate, negotiate rather than strike. All this in a world where the relative decline of American power is a necessary result of the emergence of new centers of economic growth. If America must strike, it will be for a clear reason, in the right place and with the right allies.
Mr. Cheney asks only one good question, an affirmation in fact: World order is impossible without U.S. preeminence. But is it?
The current international turmoil, from tension in East Asia to Arab uprisings, Russian aggression, African conflicts and so on, may persuade us to buy into Mr. Cheney’s reasoning. Yet it is illusory. Never has the U.S. guaranteed global order. There are regional alliances made possible because of a pax Americana, but no planetary supremacy. Even during the short period of American superpower following the fall of the USSR, the world remained in a kind of chaos. Mr. Cheney’s idea of global order stems from a sense of American entitlement—evangelical, imperialist and racist. Legitimate global order can derive only from the U.N.
The world’s most powerful democracy cannot lay claim to global governance in the name of an ideal, which would necessarily be flouted by its own implementation. The U.S.A. must of course defend its values of liberty and democracy, and promote their establishment wherever possible. But it must not assume the role of world policeman. Much as it may seem desirable in light of the emergence of authoritarian powers increasingly challenging the universality of human rights, it is simply not realistic. This, Barack Obama has well understood.
Mr. Cheney’s article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “The Collapsing Obama Doctrine” serves to remind us of the alarming turns the world can take when led by a misguided primary world power. It also accentuates the point to which changes in U.S. government affect its foreign policy. While the zephyrs of administration change do not disturb the defense of its fundamental interests, the method of doing so can shift radically.
Mr. Cheney, the man who governed the U.S.A. during the Bush years, would have us believe that the dramatic resurgence of Salafist jihadi movements in the Middle East is attributable to the culpable inaction of the White House and its current resident’s preference for talking to enemies rather than bolstering allies. The former vice president would also have us believe that the Iraq war begun in 2003 achieved its aims: Those of reinforcing America’s global leadership and stopping al-Qaida.
As the European accomplices of this neoconservative policy are getting their voices back—not least Tony Blair, who recently published a frankly pathetic article in the press— it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of certain facts concerning the American intervention in Iraq: No war since Vietnam has damaged the American leadership to such an extent; the intervention’s primary beneficiaries have been Shi’ite Iran and Communist China, now the world’s primary importer of Iraqi crude oil; Iraq, free from Salafist fighters before 2003, is now the epicenter of the jihadi movement, which, having flooded into Syria, is now reentering Iraqi lands; the Bush regime, by overthrowing a tyrannical regime on a false pretext, has besmirched the idea of liberty; lastly, the democracy implanted into Iraq has proved itself to be a failed state, due to the simple fact that it wasn’t born of an aspiration of the Iraqi people, but imported by bombs.
We might also mention the cost of this war—$35 000 of spending per American household—and the subsequent weakening of the U.S.A., or the number of Iraqi civilian victims—500,000 according to certain counts. It is in the light of this disaster that Barack Obama’s foreign policy, especially in regard to the Middle East, must be judged.
His approach is antithetical to that of Dick Cheney. He wants to understand before acting, persuade rather than dictate, negotiate rather than strike. All this in a world where the relative decline of American power is a necessary result of the emergence of new centers of economic growth. If America must strike, it will be for a clear reason, in the right place and with the right allies.
Mr. Cheney asks only one good question, an affirmation in fact: World order is impossible without U.S. preeminence. But is it?
The current international turmoil, from tension in East Asia to Arab uprisings, Russian aggression, African conflicts and so on, may persuade us to buy into Mr. Cheney’s reasoning. Yet it is illusory. Never has the U.S. guaranteed global order. There are regional alliances made possible because of a pax Americana, but no planetary supremacy. Even during the short period of American superpower following the fall of the USSR, the world remained in a kind of chaos. Mr. Cheney’s idea of global order stems from a sense of American entitlement—evangelical, imperialist and racist. Legitimate global order can derive only from the U.N.
The world’s most powerful democracy cannot lay claim to global governance in the name of an ideal, which would necessarily be flouted by its own implementation. The U.S.A. must of course defend its values of liberty and democracy, and promote their establishment wherever possible. But it must not assume the role of world policeman. Much as it may seem desirable in light of the emergence of authoritarian powers increasingly challenging the universality of human rights, it is simply not realistic. This, Barack Obama has well understood.
Nicely written article. No serious flaws in the analysis. Hard for Americans to take, of course, especially that thirty-five thousand dollar tab for a country-wrecking spree that will no doubt cost more in the future.
Nicely written article. No serious flaws in the analysis. Hard for Americans to take, of course, especially that thirty-five thousand dollar tab for a country-wrecking spree that will no doubt cost more in the future.
Mr. Cheney is, of course, a national embarrassment, so finely pointing out our national failure to live up to the ideal of the civically educated citoyen.
Mr. Cheney is, of course, a national embarrassment, so finely pointing out our national failure to live up to the ideal of the civically educated citoyen.