May 14, 2008
The League of Democracies revisited
Robert Kagan fires back at me over the League of Democracies in today’s FT.
He purports to be baffled that I should waste my time writing about the league when there are other more urgent issues to discuss - Georgia, Burma etc…Actually, I’ve written about both of these subjects in the past - and I’m sure I will again. But I think Kagan is too modest. His idea of a League of Democracies is being pushed hard by John McCain, who has a strong chance of being the next US president. So it is surely worth discussing?
Reading Kagan’s commentary today, I’m struck by how much we agree on. (There are also disagreements, which I’ll get onto in a moment.)
Both our columns ended on the same point. This is obviously not an idea that the US can impose. If European and Asian democracies are not attracted to the League of Democracies, then nothing is going to happen. Kagan also makes much of the fact that the idea of an alliance of democracies has got a lot of support among American liberals. Again, this is a point I made - in fact we cite some of the same names.
So let’s get onto the more interesting stuff: the disagreements. I think the most obvious dispute is over whether this is a potentially “dangerous” idea.
Bob Kagan attempts to be soothing on this point. He writes that the idea of a league of democracies producing a ”new cold war” is “unduly alarmist”. But he doesn’t really explain why it is unduly alarmist.
It seems to me that if - as Mr McCain suggests - we chucked Russia out of the G8, and invite India and Brazil to join, while excluding China - that would sharply increase antagonisms between democracies and autocracies. Phrases like a “new cold war” are slippery. But, call it what you will, it would be the deliberate re-introduction of a much sharper, dividing line between two global blocs. And yet - as I pointed out in my original article - we actually need to work with the Russians and Chinese on a whole range of issues from non-proliferation to global warming to the management of the international economy.
It may be that we are fated to have an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Russia and China. But why jump the gun? Why not try and put the emphasis on co-operation rather than confrontation?
Bob Kagan holds out the prospect that a League of Democracies would make it easier to stage humanitarian military interventions around the world, without being blocked by the UN. But would it really? Would this League of Democracies really be willing to invade Burma - right on China’s borders - in the name of disaster relief?
Kagan’s article also attempts to re-assure on the question of the UN. He scorns the notion that the league would try to “supplant the UN”. Well, it depends what you mean by supplant. I don’t imagine that the UN would actually be shut down. But American conservatives have long been deeply suspicious and contemptuous of the UN. There clearly is a strong anti-UN agenda behind the idea of the League of Democracies - at least as set out in McCain’s speeches. Simply denying this, merely raises suspicions among fellow democracies that there is a hidden agenda behind the idea of a democratic alliance.
So is the idea of a League of Democracies doomed for all time? Not necessarily. But I think the league will only take off, if and when the world’s democracies become convinced that they face a common threat that is so obvious and dangerous that it is worth forming a new alliance to confront a League of Autocracies. Fortunately, we are still a long way from that.
As I wrote previously the concept of “Democracy” depends on how much the elected candidate is under US control, how good servant it is to Anglo interests…in other case, that concept is not be applied and a an American-backed dictatorship or autocracy receives full support.
The U.S. has ended with the lifes of a bunch of democratic candidates who wanted to nationalise natural resources or assets of American multinationals.
Really, the concept of “League of Democracies” is just a new face of the “White Man´s Burden”, an excuse to attack, invade and steal the resources of any nations.
The old excuse was the opportunity that the People of Colour had to come under the good example of the White Man (in Europe Nazis couldn´t apply that as their colonial power was directed against the territories of other white tribes so they fond the Germanic Man´s Burden). Now, as algasema said about the US it is not politically correct talk about race so there have to be found now forms, new excuses to guarantee the intervention in other nation´s affairs.
Posted by: Enrique | May 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this comment“But I think the league will only take off, if and when the world’s democracies become convinced that they face a common threat that is so obvious and dangerous that it is worth forming a new alliance to confront a League of Autocracies.”
Of course, the above is an implausible condition made more implausible by the fact that mercantile capitalism (which is dominant in Western democracies) finds it easier / more profitable to deal with autocracies running resource-rich Third World nations as amply demonstrated by the overthrow of the likes of Pinochet and Mossadeq.
Moreover, democracies can have competing and conflicting interests. A current example is the high desirability of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline to the provision
of the energy needs of India and the American opposition to it, grounded in their desire to weaken Iran.
In short, the real reasons that the NeoCon Mr. Kagan is too ashamed to advance remain the circumvention of the UN and the isolation and marginalisation of the strategic competitors to the US.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentA convincing response. The Chinese should definitely not be spurned, especially since they seem sincere when they speak of a “harmonious society” and China’s “peaceful rise” (both ideas ingrained in their non-confrontational Confucian ethic). The Chinese are playing very smart, as when they were willing to meet representatives of the Dalai Lama, in order to ameliorate Western popular antagonism over Tibet. They could instead of reacted with nationalist self-indignation, as one imagines would have been a typical Islamist response.
Posted by: RCS | May 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this comment“Bob Kagan holds out the prospect that a League of Democracies would make it easier to stage humanitarian military interventions around the world, without being blocked by the UN. … Kagan’s article also … scorns the notion that the league would try to “supplant the UN”.
This really is disingenuous stuff from Kagan. First, creating a multilateral grouping that could initiate military interventions would clearly supplant UNSC - at least in part. Second, giving the impression that this is about improving humanitarian assistance also beggars belief.
Gideon’s description of the geopolitical ramifications are not alarmist or overstated at all. This league would send an incredible powerful and dangerous message to countries such as China.
But worst of all, not only would it be geopolitically costly, it would yield little by way of real-world benefits. Any large grouping of states with nothing in common except a certain threshold of democracy will not be able to rapidly and decisively agree on military interventions - humanitarian or otherwise - given the divergent national interests at stake.
McCain, Kagan and liberal Democrat proponents alike should all pay heed to the clear lessons of history in this regard.
Posted by: DKM | May 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Report this commentGR, “And yet - as I pointed out in my original article - we actually need to work with the Russians and Chinese on a whole range of issues from non-proliferation to global warming to the management of the international economy.”
Seems to me that the Russians and Chinese also need to work with us on these issues, so in practice how put out would they be? Other forums might be used to discuss issues of vital interest.
Your point about the anti-UN driver is, I am sure, entirely correct. But the UN is mostly a joke driven by factionalism, anti-Zionism, and the lowest common denominator - I mean Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Egypt as members of the UN human rights council?
Incidentally I see that Russia is taking China to court over the pirating of a fighter aircraft. Let’s see where that one ends up.
Enrique, “As I wrote previously the concept of “Democracy” depends on how much the elected candidate is under US control, how good servant it is to Anglo interests…in other case, that concept is not be applied and a an American-backed dictatorship or autocracy receives full support.” Kagan actually answers this point if you read his piece: EU membership criteria specifically state members have to be democracies. There’s your template.
Posted by: AYC | May 14th, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Report this commentCuriously during the Cold War, the biggest Democracy in the World (India) was an ally of the USSR whil the biggest Dictatorship (China) was an ally of the USA…And I think it was a great and successful bet from Richard Nixon.
The Council of Europe is close to the so called “League of Democracies”…including the Russian Federation.
A NATO-Plus? Aznar proposes such including Australia, Japan, Israel…even if we can think if the Alliance is going far away from its original conception of Defense.
What it is evident, the USA just wants to keep other nations under military and social control. In Germany and Japan the US keeps a permanent coercive force through permanent military bases which behave like parasites iside those nation´s bodies, without appearent interference in their internal affairs unless there is a threat to American security. In this case the parasite would kill the body without compassion…
What I don´t have any doubt is that no matter what is the name of the nation (democracy or dictatorship), if one nation attacks and invades another nation without respect to international borders and without respect to international law, I will support the victim and not the agressor even if the agressor, the criminal is a democrat.
The US is the first nation which has invaded two countries of over 26 million people since Adolf Hitler and, of course, I support the Iraqi Resistance which is fighting for Independence against the Colonial forces with great determination.
There is no justification for agression.
Posted by: Enrique | May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentThe Holy Alliance needs a heresy to be fought off. Would the heretics of today be excluded from the righteous league while still in the WTO? Mr Mc Kayn’s & Kagan’s idea is neither good nor bad; it is not an idea at all, being based on “who is not with us is against us” in the sole judgment of the US. But some today’s heretics are no easy bites.May God help us !
Posted by: Paolo- Milan | May 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentKagan”A league of democracies would also promote liberal ideals in international relations.”
More likely this league would promote liberal economic ideas that would benefit Western economic interests …(which is something liberals are very good at ….the difference being that when the neo-cons do this they do it by adding in war and conflict)…it would not advance humanism, universal values and promote economic interests in the countries on the other side of the divide…this is such typical ugly hubris on the part of the west!…it’s the same mentality that asserts that the the WTO and IMF MUST be led by US and the Western Europe…so that when Russia suggests alternative leadership like they did last year for the IMF …headlines scream “Russia is Challenging the West”!!!!!!!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentTutt tutt L-H,
You must be a communist!
P :-))
Posted by: Pacifist | May 14th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentLisa, what do you suggest WOULD advance humanism, universal values and economic interests in autocratic countries? All too easy to knock an idea, but not so easy to come up with viable alternatives…
Posted by: AYC | May 14th, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentAYC,
We already have plenty of international institutions for the purposes you suggest. Why would adding another one help?(especially one that is so suspeciously another NeoCon device).
Posted by: Pacifist | May 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentA League of Democracies? Is that a “Coalition of the Willing” all over again? Do the Neo-Cons think that the ROW suffers from amnesia?
You all need to read the reports online of the German President, ex-IMF chief, Horst Köhler’s condemnation of the banks and the leverage they practise. Amongst other things he wants them to make an “audible confession of their guilt” in the financial crisis…..and he has a lot more to say as well.
Posted by: J.J. | May 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentAs Enrique remarked, the “League of Democracies” already exists: it is called NATO. If you want a grouping which could intervene on humanitarian grounds, then extend the remit of NATO.
The League smacks of a “clash of civilisations”. It is not the way forward.
Posted by: RCS | May 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this comment“Tutt tutt L-H,
You must be a communist!
P :-))”
Very funny P! You just lost your spot on my Gentlemen Gem List!
I think it very amusing that the US thinks all you have to do is insert the word “Democracy” “Democratic” into everything…think tanks, organizations, speeches etc…. That insertion somehow is supposed to make everything acceptable, correct, just, and noble…God forbid! anyone should dare to scrutinize the entity carry the word or analyze the motives etc…
AYC,
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentin regard to your comment…ending occupations of other people and other lands, and other countries, reforming trade policies, more interfaith dialogue and education …more inter ethnic dialogue and education would be worthwhile efforts to focus on and promote…and one little thing more… the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals in 2000…the West should find ways of working with the rest of the world but especially Russia and China on achieving these goals…half the population of the world lack basic sanitation…how about the liberals that Kagan touted and McCain join together and call themselves “THe League Of Sanitation”…with a goal to ensure the spread of sanitation around the world…a lot more children might make it to adulthood with healthy minds and bodies…
Look Look P! …I made my Smiley! Practice makes perfect!! I would support a “League of Smiley Faces” also…!!!
:-) 
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 14th, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentP: “We already have plenty of international institutions for the purposes you suggest. Why would adding another one help?(especially one that is so suspeciously another NeoCon device).” And they’ve done just a super job of advancing mankind’s general welfare, haven’t they.
RCS: Nato is purely a military alliance (at least that’s the idea - see commitment to fighting in Afghanistan), and a defensive one at that. As I understand it, the League would be much more than this. A positive force for the advancement of democracy and all its attendant benefits. Bring it on.
Posted by: AYC | May 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentDear L-H,
I think the Spring has affected your mood extremely positively. I am still waiting to cheer up though.
Your following observation is very prescient. “…the US thinks all you have to do is insert the word “Democracy” “Democratic” into everything…. That insertion somehow is supposed to make everything acceptable, correct, just, and noble… ”
After all they bombed the hell out of the Iraqis to bring them democracy!
Of course, anybody who disagreed with the US policies used to be called a communist. Nowadays, some have graduated to being called Islamists…
I think they are v good at demonisation of the “other”.
Keep smiling folks.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 14th, 2008 at 5:57 pm | Report this commentAYC: And they’ve done just a super job of advancing mankind’s general welfare, haven’t they.
Well, they haven’t (which was my point). So explain why this NeoCons’ league will do a better job.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentGideon’s differences with Kagan would seemingly serve to bin this idea. Comments here by others on the word game are spot on; in less than two decades, the US has taken the dignity and integrity from three words that meant something when I began life on this planet: “Christian”, “Jewish” and “Democracy”. The Pavlovian response to any of these terms today is just short of a slightly convulsive spit. Yet, my values and beliefs remain intact. I think.
Gideon goes on at length with his sound arguments, but concludes in a characteristically clever way. He endorses the concept and leaves open the possibility that such a Neocon Superstate will, indeed, find its time. Linking back to other recent columns, one can detect some oily threads and too many tête-à-têtes with Kagan & Co types.
What is this “common threat”? Which nations, besides the usual suspects, will be in such a league? Who will form the “Superclass”/Übermenschen that one of Kissinger’s protegés has written of?
Who amongst paid pundits and “leaders” has a vision that can see beyond these selfish, self-righteous, cynical and, ultimately, inhuman ambitions of the Exceptionalists?
Please do not respond with name Obama.
Posted by: WCM | May 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentWCM, I think that what is more important in foreign policy is the behaviour of nations, not if the name given to them: if a nation attacks and invades its neighbor, it is the agressor, the criminal, no matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship; and the victim, will be the victim no matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. The criminal should be punished and the victim compensated.
And, being sincere, what Gideon and Kagan are talking about is just intervention in other nations affairs, and ultimately invasion in the name of Democracy, the “Democratic Man´s Burden”…
Posted by: Enrique | May 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentIf McCain wins the US election, perhaps he should consider a US application for membership of the Commonwealth.
Posted by: Thomas S. | May 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm | Report this commentI have just read in The Economist that 14% of black males have spent part of their lifes in jail…that means an staggering 2 million out of 17 million black males sharing such an experience of exclusion and contac with criminals!!
Posted by: Enrique | May 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm | Report this commentP”I think the Spring has affected your mood extremely positively. I am still waiting to cheer up though.”
Not really…unfortunately, I think this is going to be a VERY difficult summer …with potential to have impact on US elections outcomes…
By the way, there is a report that an unmanned American drone has targeted and hit “a dinner party” of about 30 people in the village of Damadola, mountains of Pakistan…
Drones and Dinner parties …what next?
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 15th, 2008 at 3:30 am | Report this comment>>LHL–Then my guests on Sunday evening in Paris should feel lucky.
Posted by: WCM | May 15th, 2008 at 7:10 am | Report this commentIs L-HL being too optimistic in believing that ONLY this summer will be very difficult? As a French financial paper put it sarcastically:
“You loved the subprime crisis? You’ll adore the recession in the real economy”… 2010 has been mentioned as the year of recovery. Cash in enough stocks to have a “cushion” for the next 2 years, is my advice.
Let’s see what 77 y.o. Warren Buffet is going to do with his cash pile of $40bn, he’s arriving in Old Europe in a few days. Says he’s interested in investing in German KMUs (kleine und mittelgrosse Unternehmen) small and medium-sized companies. I couldn’t agree more: some German stocks in that category have risen by more than 1′000 percent since 2003/2004!!! And on top of that, the Euro has also soared.
Posted by: J.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 8:28 am | Report this commentThe LD’s “democraticness” criteria even if it’s suited to some other existing framework (like the EU membership) is still a subject to judgement. And even if Mr.Kagan succeeds in introducing some sort of a framework, he will find out that he needs exceptions. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Azerbaidzhan. This list is very long.
In the business world this thing is called “management override of controls”. This is when the purpose of control confronts with some other dominating purposes that you have. Neo-cons phyloshophy here is actually based on benefits of such overriding (like ignoring UN security council).
And I wouldn’t also be so keen on including Russia to the “League of Autocraties”. Something Mr.Kagan wants you to do. First of all Russians after 1990 are enjoying major freedoms like being absolutely free to travel around the world, use internet, run a a business and etc. This is not just a grey mass that you may easily exclude from making world-wide decisions.
Let me remind you, Mr.Kagan, that in 1993 parlament elections in Russia due to economic crisis were almost won by ultra-nationalists. In 1996 only mass media “override” prevented communist party from getting their president to Kremlin.
Democracy needs time to be developed from the stage of just confronting elites to the stage of political platforms. In case of post-Soviet space (not excluding Georgia and Ukraine) the latter stage is still very remote.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | May 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am | Report this commentIf the United States – a country preoccupied with invading, occupying and killing the citizens of other countries while it incarcerates, spies on and destroys the constitutional rights of its own citizens – is a member of the League of Democracy, perhaps we should raise the bar a little.
Posted by: Paskalis | May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am | Report this commentI would like to report/protest the use of the word “unmanned” in the phrase “a report that an unmanned American drone…..” in an earlier message from L-H. Lawson
Reason:
On grounds of sexual discrimination, political incorrectness and possible confusion. The drone might have been “unwomanned” for all we know.
Any suggestions for p.c. alternatives to “unmanned” and “unwomanned”?
Posted by: J.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am | Report this commentHow would membership be decided?
You could probably frame a set of rules that would exclude a democratic nation such as Zimbabwe.
But what set of rules would exclude Iran which conducts scrupulously fair elections but limits the candidates you may vote for, but not the US itself which lets anyone be a candidate but allows a president to be elected even though he got less votes than his opponent.
And what set of rules would exclude Putin’s Russia whith its dodgy counting and the majority of the media controlled by the winning candidates party, yet not exclude Berlisconi’s Italy with its dodgy counting and the majority of the media controlled by the winning candidate?
Plus what about all those countries with an unelected head of state such as Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, the UK etc.?
Surely this would just end up as a League of Countries the State Department Approves Of, and would be viewed as “The League of Spineless American Sycophants” by non members.
Posted by: James Anderson | May 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am | Report this commentBTW, did everyone read the following excellent article by Lawrence Freedman?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e6a410a-1f6f-11dd-9216-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
It is the best self-criticism I have seen of the American attitudes towards perceived enemies.
As the “league” will be an attempt to gather together friends and punish / isolate enemies of the US, this article is a timely and apposite caution about knowing and dealing with the “enemy”.
A highlight is this passage:-
Quote
Presenting all conflicts as straightforward battles between good and evil not only discourages subtle distinctions, it encourages caricatures of both enemies and friends. Just as our opponents will always be marked by implacable hostility, disdain for human life and for civilised values, so those on our side will be “none of the above” and wholly virtuous. It would be neat if the world were divided between freedom-loving democrats without a thought of aggression and murderous totalitarians, heirs of Hitler, bent on imposing their will. Yet this clearly is not the case.
Another tendency is to lump together all opponents regardless of whether they have much in common, as if they are all part of the same terrible plot against the US, and then to assume that they know exactly what they are doing, with uncompromising goals and a settled strategy to be pursued to the bitter end. The only mistake the foe is ever allowed is to underestimate America’s will and determination to prevail.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am | Report this commentIt is also reproduced in the Polish edition of the FT (in English):
http://ft.onet.pl/0,9737,know__rather_than_imagine__your_enemy,artykul_ft.html
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am | Report this commentP,
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentI shall read it at some point today (it’s my morning) Right now I need another latte after listening to President Bush attack Senator Obama during his speech to the Israeli Knesset!…12 dead including 3 children per “THE Media Line MidEast Daily” from the drone attack…and John McCain just made a major speech pointing out no terrorists attacks in US since 9/11 …the Republican Party Foreign Policy plank held captive by neo-cons centered on the Politics of fear promoted at home and… now abroad…
Dear L-H,
I think it is a very good article and worth ordering a second cup of coffee to read it over!.
The Tel Aviv - White House axis are trying to use the dying days of the Bush administration to cause more mayhem in the Middle East. I am pretty sure that they are planning another assault on the Lebanese and I am even more sure that they will get another bloody nose (but a lot of innocents will die or become homeless in the process).
I guess some people have to learn the hard way. Still, all that warmongering won’t stop them calling themselves democracies and other people “evil”.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentMaybe I am in a simplistic mood today, if not as usual, but why does so much of the comment invariably boil down to the Israel-Palestinian issue, regardless of what the topic of a given blog might be? For example, 1.5 million people are now at risk of dying in Burma. I am no statistician, but wouldn’t that be more than the entire number of people who have been killed in Jewish-Arab conficts during the past 60 years since the State of Israel was established?
Posted by: algasema | May 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
I would say the Tel Aviv-Saud-White House Axis…
Ryhad plays in the same field as Tel Aviv and the White House in the Mideast.
For some years the Neocon fanatics thought that it would be a great idea a coup to end with the Saudi Dictatorship and with the other GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) Dictatorships (Kuwait, Dubai-UAE, Abu Dhabi-UAE, Qatar, Oman)whom they blamed for 911 as most terrorists were saudies….until George Bush I and the traditional Realists in the U.S. Administration ended with that NACP policy considering that the Neocons and Al-Qaeda had the same target: ending with the Saudi Monarchy.
Posted by: Enrique | May 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentThe first good news to come out of the Middle East this week has just arrived: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has invited the Chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, to attend the International Islamic Dialogue Conference in Makkah this June….David Igantius today in the Washington Post got a lot right about Bush Admin lost opportunities but came to the wrong conclusion….and displayed the thinking from some liberals and all the neo-cons that led to this dangerous (and it is dangerous) concept of League of Democracies…now I must go and read the article “p” asked us to take a look at…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
The Palestinian issue is a mask for the global aspirations of the Iranian Revolution.
Posted by: RCS | May 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm | Report this commentRCS:The Palestinian issue is a mask for the global aspirations of the Iranian Revolution
I know many Israelis who were protesting what you call “The Palestinian issue” and what the world calls the “Israeli occupation of Palestinians” and predicting how it would corrupt the country’s work ethic and body politic and they were doing this shortly after the occupation began (67) and long before the Iranian Revolution took place (79)…
It truly saddens me to say that Israel is behaving like a banana republic by keeping Olmert on as PM…
The Quartet is showing itself to be useless and impotent by allowing Marwan Barghouti’s continuing imprisonment…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 16th, 2008 at 2:07 am | Report this comment“The Quartet is showing itself to be useless and impotent by allowing Marwan Barghouti’s continuing imprisonment”
I am especially disappointed in GB, Germany, and Russia…I expected to see some backbone from them…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 16th, 2008 at 2:10 am | Report this commentWe must ask: if the Neocons and Al-Qaeda achieve their objective to overthrow the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) autocracies, will we have a better World?
Posted by: Enrique | May 16th, 2008 at 6:21 am | Report this commentConsidering the present BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) Summit being held in Ekaterimburg (Russia) I wonder if these nations are much worried about U.S. threats…
Probably they are somewhat but not as much as Spain which has received open threats from the U.S.A. and lost contracts worth billions of USD to our Russian and Chinese competitors to develop one of the biggest oilfiends in the World located in Iran, or selling fragates worth 2 billion USD to Venezuela….
Yes, the Main Threat to World Peace right now as we know is the United States of America, a nation which has invaded two sovereign nations of over 26 million people in five years, something not seen since Adolf Hitler´s invasion of Poland.
But first Americans need to find out what they want because on one side some American sectors linked to the Neocons want to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy and the other GCC autocracies (Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Oman)….and in the other side, the Realists want to keep the Saudi-American-Israeli Axis…
Posted by: Enrique | May 16th, 2008 at 6:39 am | Report this commentThe BRIC Summit marks definetely a diminishing influence of the U.S. in World Affairs.
Posted by: Enrique | May 16th, 2008 at 6:56 am | Report this commentRCS, let us, for the purpose of argument, accept the rather simplistic view that the Palestinians are merely proxies for Iran and the Israelis are the same for the US, putting aside the complexity of Jewish - Arab relations ever since the State of Israel was founded, if not ever since the time of the Balfour declaration itself.
Is not even the US-Iran struggle for Middle Eastern supremacy becoming overblown when compared with other events going on in the world? Economically speaking, Iran has never been in the same league with the giants Fafner and Fasolt, to use a Wagnerian analogy, but is closer to being like Alberich or one of his fellow dwarfs (despite, like Alberich, having an abundant supply of gold, or, more specifically, “black gold”).
The US, meanwhile, is doing its best to shrink its own wealth and power down to dwarf level through its reward the rich, beggar the middle class economic policies and its insane Iraq war. China, Japan, and perhaps India are becoming the new (or in Japan’s case, not so new) economic and political giants.
To get back to my Wagner analogy, the struggle between the rising Asian giants, like the one between Fafner and Fasolt, is taking place in front of the gods in Valhalla, while the US -Iran one, let alone the Israeli-Palestinian one, belongs more properly in Nibelheim, the lower realm of the dwarfs, in terms of importance. At least, I am sure, that is the way that the Chinese and Japanese would look at things (if they were Wagnerians) and the reat of us would do well to start seeing the world more and more through their eyes, as they are the ones who will be calling most of the economic and geopolitical shots in the years to come.
Posted by: algasema | May 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am | Report this commentHi Algasema:
Briefly, there are 3 reasons for the obsession with the Middle East on this forum:
1-) Middle East is indeed an important region (due to energy reserves) and a politically interesting region (due to incessant, multi-party conflicts).
2-) There are several posters here of Middle Eastern (including Israeli) origin to whom the region is important because of their own affiliations. Generally, the Middle Easterners are more interested in politics than most other people!
3-) The US political establishment in general, and the Bush admin in particular, is infested with Zinonists and Christian fundamentalists for whom the Middle East is more important than its economic and strategic worth might suggest (due to their emotional and religious attachments). This means that more heat and noise comes out of Washington about the Middle East than about other regions (including the disastrous military entanglement in Iraq). Also it may well be the case that it takes the Americans’ eyes off the ball in more important issues like China / India / Environment etc.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am | Report this commentSpeaking of president Bush’s words to the Knesset, it was the type of speech that gives sycophancy a bad name. Made it look like “the nation that stands tall” wears elevator shoes.
Posted by: Paskalis | May 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm | Report this commentBush’s speech to the Knesset is more than ample reason to recognise that the US no longer sees peace in the world as its primary objective. Nonetheless, Obama is naive to think that how US leaders differ in their views of the rest of the world should be kept en famille. The US purports to rule and its debates are the business of all us.
Hooking onto a loose UN reference Philip Stephen’s well-reasoned piece today, i.e., a thin thread to the League of Democracies, permit to note a number of things vis-à-vis the Burma noise:
1) Burma has been a problem, as he notes, for a very long time. The US has led failed sanctions which have served the junta well. Thus, this cyclone and its disastrous results have become a handle for Washington’s PR agencies to make noise to distract from the ubiquitous attention to US-Israeli failed policies. Implicitly, the Tibet and now Burma stories have served as timely distractions. I think Algasema has read them too closely if he believes 1.5 million people will fall as a result of this tragedy.
2) No self-respecting leader at odds with Washington would’ve accepted Washington’s aid. Bush’s offer was as laden with ambitions as any uttered by Adolph Hitler to Franco. Kouchner has merely become the Neocon’s theologian of the hour, taking over from the more openly conflicted Blair. Few have commented on the obvious contradictions in Bush’s response to this disastrous storm and that which hit New Orleans a few short years ago. Bush perhaps puts more value on Asiatic Burmese (in their several groups) than on poor US blacks.
3) Burma is a problem. It must be dealt with. The US and its Superclass alliances that see the country’s vast riches in minerals and oil should not be allowed to exploit its political weakness. The Chinese are friends of the junta, not the Burmese peoples. Asean needs to rethink its strategy, and I believe its aid should be welcomed today. I suspect Washington has blackmailed other countries from negotiating aid entry in order to play its own foul deck of cards.
4) The French need to be held accountable for their hypocrisy. Total was long a friend of the junta and employed tens of thousands in the construction of the pipeline across the southern Mon and Karenni territories. Kouchner is one of the more dangerous frauds on the stage today. A sly snake, he rode the Ségolène Royal campaign right into the Quai d’Orsay’s luminous halls serving with his Neocon pal, Sarkozy.
Burma is not just another story, but the abject and criminal failures of the junta are arguably dignified by the global hegemony sought by the US and Israel and their financial partners. I doubt if many here have a clue about Ne Win and the origins of this junta. The Kennedy Administration welcomed them into power in 1962. Just as they did governments who played along with their economic hegemony (Progress for Peace) games in Latin America.
Posted by: WCM | May 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
I know nothing of Wagner’s operas, so I cannot comment on the details of your analogy. However your choice of Wagner is apposite in that Iran is an Aryan nation.
Do not underestimate the importance of Iran. The right comparison is Russia, not China. Both Russia and Iran are energy-rich Eurasian giants whose strategic stature is multiplied and enhanced in the age of the ICBM and nuclear warhead (medium range missile technology, as Iran already possesses, is easily expandable to strategic ranges). But whereas Russian society is in many ways rotting, Iran is driven by a powerful ideology which it strives to export. So an even better comparison is not modern-day Russia but the Soviet Union. Admittedly Iran is not there yet, but such is the threat which looms on the horizon. Do we want a return to the strategic standoff of cold war days? I think China’s ‘peaceful rise’ and ‘harmonious society’ are a much more attractive template for our multi-polar future.
Posted by: RCS | May 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Iran a “giant”, comparable with the Soviet Union, and keen to export her ideology aboard medium range missiles!!
Man… read what you have written and blush. I was expecting more from you than a caricatured version of events suitable for Fox TV and Debkafiles!
A more real picture: Iran is a technologically backward, poorly managed third world state that is trying to protect her interests in the face of unremitting aggression by the world’s sole superpower.
Moreover, Iran has not attacked anybody else for two centuries but has been attacked by everyone else (British, Ottomans, Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, US and Iraq)and is being threatened regularly by Israeli and American politicians,the latest of which was Mrs. Clinton’s threat to obliterate Iran.
And can you just run the argument that Iran are trying to export their Shia ideology on the back of their missiles past me once more?! Are Iranians trying to convert other nations to Shia Islam by bombing them?
Reality Check: The missiles are Iran’s only way to hit back in case of aggression by hostile states who have enormous superiority in military aircraft and threaten to bomb Iran regularly.
Best,
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Report this commentIt looks like those who think that the West should be fairer towards the rest of the world are convinced that the rest of the world will be fair towards the West after all (The Chinese should definitely not be spurned, especially since they seem sincere when they speak of a “harmonious society” and China’s “peaceful rise” (both ideas ingrained in their non-confrontational Confucian ethic)). What makes you so certain? Combine technology with virtually unlimited recourses – what a beast you will get! Will anyone keep it contained? Would you? I think that making friends with dictators is a huge gamble. Just the way Lenin had it “capitalists will sell you the rope which you will use to hang them”. How can you be sure that another Lenin or someone even smarter doesn’t come up? Some nations are so good at it. Everyone is so impressed with Putin and now you see so many intellectuals slapping their cheeks with the ears but after all is said and done he is not that smart and often he is simly embracing. Is Putin enough to stop democracy and even destroy it where it is already in place? The “mild (whatever it is called) power”? You cannot be serious. So many dictators are laughing at it already.
Posted by: VI | May 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Report this commentcorrection – simply embarrassing
Posted by: VI | May 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentDear P,
What you term the “real” picture — Iran a poor third-world nation valiantly defending its independence against oppressive outside exploitation — is very far from reality. You are describing history, not the present, even less so the shape of things to come.
Iran has not attacked anybody for two centuries? How about the bombings in Buenos Aires? What of Hizbollah’s recent almost-coup in Lebanon? Iranian obstructionism in Iraq?
Is Iranian meddling in Lebanon a defensive move? Would a poor nation have been able to subsidise Syria’s military modernisation? Is support for Hamas not an export of Islamist ideology?
Iran, with its vast energy resources and highly-educated population, its determined leadership and strongly nationalist traditions, towers over other Islamic nations in the Middle East. Iran is a future pole in a multi-polar world. As I said, let us hope such a world may be fashioned in the image of China’s ‘peaceful rise’ and ‘harmonious society’, not marred by agressive assertiveness a la Russia and Iran.
Posted by: RCS | May 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentRCS, I assume that you are being ironic when you talk about China’s “peaceful rise” and “harmonious society”. Surely you cannot be serious.
Posted by: algasema | May 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Report this commentRcs Dear!,
You say:-
“Iran, with its vast energy resources and highly-educated population, its determined leadership and strongly nationalist traditions, towers over other Islamic nations in the Middle East. Iran is a future pole in a multi-polar world.”
This reminds me of the old gag about the Jewish man who used to buy Nazi newspapers in Hitler’s era.
When his friends protested, he said that he read them for its feelgood factor:-
“In our day to day lives we are poor, powerless and oppressed” he said, “but in those newspapers we are rich, we run everything and are planning to take over the world!”
Your description of Iran and Iranians are the same.
As for your accusations:-
- Buenos Aires bombing is being ascribed to Iran for political advantage and by using the famously corrupt Argentinian “legal” (ha ha) system.
- Hezbollah are not Iranian and their “coup” is only another propagandistic description of their defensive move against the illegal Hariri government and part of the ongoing power struggle in Lebanon. Iran is not attacking Lebanon like Israel does daily.
- In Iraq, Americans have screwed up all by themselves. Read that article by Lawrence Freedman in the FT again (and again).
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Hizbollah not Iranians? FYI Israel now shares a northern border with Iran.
Sure, Americans screwed up in Iraq. But the Iranians (and their Syrian dependency) cannot wash their hands of their own part in sowing terror and chaos, in tormenting the lives of ordinary Iraqis for Machiavellian purposes.
Posted by: RCS | May 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
My last post for this Friday!
Surely, any country has an interest in its neighbours and Iran (having suffered at the hands of the Iraqis before) is entitled to a keen interest to what goes on there.
The dirty little secret of the Americans is that most of their casualties (by a very long way) have been at the hands of the Sunnis who are supported by the US allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan etc. Now the US (under the stupid Gen. Petreaus) has armed the Sunni tribesmen too.
The “blowback” shall be very severe indeed.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this commentP: “- Hezbollah are not Iranian and their “coup” is only another propagandistic description of their defensive move against the illegal Hariri government and part of the ongoing power struggle in Lebanon.” I’m curious. You have previous stated that you do not support the export of the revolution, religious extremism or the aims of the Iranian government. From the statement above, it seems that you do.
I’m not sure how you can really say that Nasrallah’s underlings haven’t broken their word by turning their guns on other Lebanese. A “defensive move” with a lightening attack? I seem to remember Blitzkrieg was a favourite of that other vicious Jew hater, Adolph.
Posted by: AYC | May 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentDefinitely my last post for the week.
AYC: It is nonsense to say that the present government in Iran is trying to export revolution. Those hothead talks belonged to the first few years of the revolution.
As for Lebanon, the Hariri government (which is unconstitutional as it does not represent all groupings of the country, particularly the largest one) tried to harm Hezbbollah and cut off their communication and transport links so that they could be handed over to the Israelis on a plate. It failed. It is internal Lebanese politics though. USrael should stop trying to provoke fights inside Lebanon.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Report this commentIt was stupid to provoke Hezbollah…all that happened is that the US trained militias showed they cant fight!!! Siniora was humiliated but left standing, very smart of Nasrallah…now Siniora, Jumblatt, Berri, Geagea, Aoun, Hariri, among others including Hezbollah’s Resistance Bloc headed by MP Mohammed Raad are in Qatar…IF in Qatar they all agree to Suleiman as president, the forming a national-unity government, and the adopting a new electoral law…then maybe this latest conflict was a blessing in disguise…I wonder who made the call to Siniora to take on Hezbollah? He did not do this on his own …he had prompting…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentThe great classical Arabic poet, Al-Mutanabbi, wrote that, in the eyes of the small, their small deeds are great, but in the eyes of the great, their great deeds are small. Given that we now live in a world dominated, not only by the US and Europe, but by China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Venezuela and a lot of other places that used to be taken for granted (more or less), if not ignored, by the western powers, isn’t there something just a little anachronistic, if not distorted, in focusing on the Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, et al and, yes, the Iranians, as if they were the only game in town, or as if they had any earth-shakijg significance other than their proximity to Middle Eastern oil?
Maybe this is a good time to take Al-Mutanabbi’s reminder to heart. Having said that, I will also sign off before I begin to make the mistake of taking any of my own comments too seriously.
Posted by: algasema | May 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
Iran has attained a very dangerous position in the ME: Iranian-backed Hamas controls Gaza; Hizbollah, an arm of the Iranian state, could take Lebanon at will; Syria is dependent on Iran; the moment American forces leave, Iraq would fall prey to the Iranians (notice how this outlines the boundaries of various Persian empires in history). Take note that the oil and gas producing regions of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar are mostly Shia-populated areas.
Iran is developing missiles with a range of 3,500 km which could reach Europe — the technological leap from these to ICBMs isn’t too great. And then there is the issue of uranium enrichment.
Gideon,
May I suggest you write about this new strategic paradigm in the Middle East?
Posted by: RCS | May 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentMr. Rachman, People,
Posted by: pchoob | May 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Report this commentMost of these brilliant new foreign policy ideas seem to originate from the same place as those in the following 2 books:
The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
both books by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a senior adviser to the US SecDef.
Also worth looking at (even if just for laughs),
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/09/21/8-re-drawing-the-map-of-the-middle-east/
.
Senator Mc Cain proposal of a league of democracies has an obvious intent to resuscitate the leadership of the United States
All well and good but it is implicit the U.S. of A
would not wish to have its policies directed by anyone ,
There is the rub , would the staunchly pro-Israel putative president support sanctions against the jewish state to bring flexibility to peace talks
or disengage from Irak ( ! ) on a consensus decision that it does more harm than good ?
of course not , there is also the tricky question of the weight of each country opinion ,
is the voice of Britain equivalent to the voice of Estonia ,
would Britain or for that matter Estonia ,agree ?
the United Nations and Europe tangled with those conundrum for decades , finessing policies of convoluted complexity
to be inclusive .
Methink the U.S. are singularly incapable of such apparent time wasting ,
more likely to raise the stars and stripes , charging boldly the windmills .
A major problem is that the two most influential non-Anglo countries Japan and Germany
have their own particular policies toward China and Russia .
Japan see China as a Huge market guaranteeing Japanese prosperity for decade ,
Germany is evolving toward its historical position as being the European mentor of Russia
both countries business circle would not brook histrionic chest thumping in the name of a rancid policy
They also are closer to the target of Mr Mc Cain ire , an ocean distance is not just a geographical one .
Since the fiasco of Bucharest , Germany has taken it’s own course vis a vis Russia ,
the paralysis in the Europeans Chancelleries between the eastern and western currents
has led the Germans to seek their own policy ,
The weakening of the Franco-German axis was of course ineluctable since reunification ,
the enlarging to the east was probably more trouble that it was worth ,
Britain euro-reluctance and enthusiastic bushophilia helped
the result is a Germany less concerned with Europe , seeking its own relations with Russia
it’s not an alliance but it start to look like an entente .
.
Posted by: jeannick | May 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am | Report this commentIf being part of NATO results in a just Peace between Israel and the Palestinian Patriots, then it is something that has to be taken into consideration…
Posted by: Enrique | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 am | Report this comment