Bill Clinton's first foreign policy when he became president was to bomb Iraq. Now five years on perhaps he is going to end up bombing Iraq again. With a military whose firepower has no peer, supported by a budget more than the military budgets of all the other industrial nations of the world combined, the temptation to work outside of UN authority and deliver a quick-one is obviously difficult to resist.
The job of US president comes with the burden of two hundred years of America's twin aspirations-to be invulnerable and to be able to realize its imperial ambitions.
One thing can be said with assurance after watching Mr.Clinton as commander-in-chief for five years: he never absorbed in any significant amounts the worldly wisdom of his mentor, William Fulbright, the Arkansas who became chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee and who resisted President Lyndon Johnson's expansion of the Vietnam War with far greater effectiveness than the Oxford student out on the streets of London, shouting slogans at the American Embassy. It was Fulbright who coined the phrase, in the title of his great book on foreign policy, "The Arrogance of Power".
One wonders what term of endearment he would use for his country, if alive today?
Clinton once said that the US cannot be "simply.... another great power". But he has never put flesh on this thought and has surrounded himself with foreign policy advisors who could not sit comfortably in the same room as the likes of Fulbright.
If Bill Clinton had wanted a different foreign policy in the mould of Fulbright there were good thoughtful people to hire - such as Ronald Steel, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California and author of "Temptations of a Superpower" who has argued that "if America is not to exhaust itself in pursuit of grandiose ambitions it must re-establish a sense of the feasible". Or Harvey Sapolsky Professor of Public Policy at M.I. T. who earlier this year in a seminal article in Harvard University's "International Security" effectively demolished the rationale behind America's growing reach abroad, in particular NATO expansion and more vigorous presence in east Asia.
Perhaps, too, he should bring in the managing editor of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Fareed Zukaria, who in an artful piece in its non-establishment rival, "World Policy Journal" strips off the layers of obfuscation and myth-making in American foreign policy to make plain that the US has always been driven by expansionist desires and now that it meets no real resistance is perhaps at last going to realise its innermost desires.
The truth is, writes Mr. Zukaria, "ever since the thirteen colonies, nestled east of the Allegheny Mountains, relentlessly marched west to acquire and occupy the continent, expansionism and imperialism have been part of the American ideal".
These ambitions were not exhausted with the conquest of California. In the 1850s, in the aftermath of the Mexican war, American leaders waxed lyrical on the need for further expansion. In 1853 President Franklin Pierce said he would "not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansionism."
American diplomats tried to negotiate the purchase of parts of Mexico, Cuba and Hawaii. Even Canada was a target. John Quincy Adams thought, that in the end the US would annex all of North America.
For a while the Civil War tempered these ambitions. Once over they reappeared, with new fervour. Since Britain had allied itself with the defeated Confederacy revenge would be sweet if its Canadian possession to the north could be taken. Only the might of the British Navy kept the American debate, led by Abraham Lincoln's imperial-minded, Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, within sensible bounds.
By the turn of the century America had the wealth, the power and the means to chart its own foreign waters, irrespective of Britain. And now, at century's end the world is America's oyster. The danger of such power is the danger of those who always fly too close to the sun. To believe that what is good for America is good for the world is to set America up, in the due course of time, for an equal and opposite reaction.
This is not to say that today's issue of bringing Saddam Hussein to book is wrong. It is profoundly right. But, although America has the military muscle to do it alone, it has to discipline itself to take the world along with it.
The arrogance of power, long in the making has to find the route to humility. But if the boy from Arkansas cannot do it, with all his advantages, who can?
This column is also distributed by Editors Press Service to: El Pais, Colombia; The News, Mexico; The Advocate, Barbados; The Gleaner, Jamaica; The St. Croix Avis, Virgin Islands; The Guardian, Bahamas; The Guyana Graphic; El Diario, Bolivia; El Espectator, Colombia; El Heraldo, Mexico; Diario El Sol, Peru; El Pais, Uruguay ana the New Zealand Herald
The controversial three day Mid dle East-North Africa Economic Conference in the Gulf state of Qatar has been overshadowed by Iraq's confrontation with the UN and the United States.
Earlier this month the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak described it as meaningless during his visit to Abdu Dgabi and most Arab countries decided to boycott the Doha conference due to the arrogant attitude of the Israeli government and its devastating impact on the peace process. Which, for all practical purposes, has been unceremonially buried beneath the sands of the Jewish settlements on Arab lands.
The omen was bad from early this year for the conference which suffered setbacks one after the other - the Israeli government's 1988 budget last month calling for a 20 percent boost in settlement spending, its plan to expand the West Bank settlement to cover an area larger than that of Tel Aviv stretching from Jerusalem to the Jordan River, its rejection of a creation of a Palestinian state and its refusal to hold promised negotiations in Washington on the central issues blocking Palestinian peace efforts. They also dealt serious blows to Arab countries seated on the fence and adopted a "wait and see" policy in the hope of some positive signs from Israel to attend the conference.
Ever since coming to power Mr. Netanyahu has been causing crisis after crisis embarrassing friendly Arab governments, building up tension and destabilising the entire region. Bent on doing what he wanted he pays little or no respect for international law, moral principles or public opinion.
The Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who met Mr. Netanyahu several times now says he had lost faith on the Israeli leader who made many promises but never fulfilled them. He pointed out that the MENA Economic Conference was an idea mooted by the former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in the aftermath of the Oslo Accords. When the first three conferences were held the peace process was in progress and now the Israeli government had failed to honour what was agreed upon. Thus the conference has lost its purpose.
Describing the settlement policy as contrary to international law German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel who called on Israel to abide by the memorandum on the settlement issue stated that Middle East would be a central theme at the informal EU foreign ministers talks in Luxembourg.
On the other hand the Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeney Primakov blamed Israel for the stalemate in the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu had brought his country's relations with its neighbours to such a low ebb that even peace-loving Israelis had become sick and tired forcing Israeli President Ezer Weizman, who cancelled a planned trip to China to predict the fall of Netanyahu government by year end.
Of course the US peace envoy Dennis Ross comes and goes from time to time, fruitless peace talks too resume with all its wide publicity but the construction of Jewish settlements continue unabated changing the map of the areas almost daily.
After all Natanyahu knows, except for few statements here and there condemning his policies, nothing would obstruct his destructive policies - the multi billion dollar US aid, political and military support would continue uninterrupted and the UN would turn a blind eye.
Klaus Schwab, President and Founder of the World Economics Forum which initiated these conferences had expressed hope that the conference would be a success. He had stated that invitations have been issued to 90 countries and 45 international organizations besides chief executives of leading companies in the region. Success or failure, the Doha meet had helped divide the already divided Arab world further serving only the interest of the Zionists bent imposing its hegemony in the region.
Usually quite prim and proper, and quite Brit ish in its idiom., Reuters permitted itself a touch of romance when it reported the news.
"The Chinese dragon and the Russian bear, allies-turned enemies in the Cold War era, are once again enjoying cosy ties," said Reuters on Monday.
It reported the joint declaration released to the media during President Boris Yeltsin's three-day visit to China. President Jiang Zemin spent four days in Russia late April. The Beijing Review an official publication, spoke of China's policy to "develop a strategic partnership" soon after President Jiang Zemin's Russian visit. How do these leaders see the structure of global politics after the Soviet implosion and the collapse of bipolarity? Stalin and some of his successors were so sure of Soviet strength that the planners of grand strategy were even prepared to fight on two fronts..... capitalist America and Communist China.
President
Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin: comrades in arms
In
our own region the Chinese army humbled neighbouring India, an India which had
evidently found security in a formal treaty with the U.S.S.R., the communist
superpower. The Indo-Soviet treaty signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made
no difference. Nobody speaks of bipolarity any more. Multipolarity is the buzz
word. Thus this first paragraph in the joint statement of the People's Republic
of China and the Russian Federation:
"The two sides shall in the spirit of partnership strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
So the ultimate goal is a "new world order". an ideal to which the U.S -led western alliance is also committed.... with a difference. The new order must be founded on certain values, personal liberty and democracy. The ultimate goal (a new order) may be the same but the terms in which the "order " is defined are different. In one, the accent is on the individual; in the second, the emphasis is on the state and inter-state relations. No longer is ideology, Marxism-Leninism or Mao Tse-tung Thought the fundamental issue, or the defining characteristic. It is mutual interest but interest perceived in what is usually described as a 'unipolar world' which Chinese commentators prefer to introduce in terms of "hegemony," meaning of course American dominance. In the post-war world, and certainly after Mao and the Communists had eliminated Chiang Kai-shek, and established themselves the unchallenged rulers of China, we did see a Beijing-Moscow axis. Ideology was the binding force. There was a world to conquer, and Socialism would surely win, with Marxism-Leninism the new world religion. That vision soon collapsed when Moscow and Beijing claimed that the other mis-interpreted the gospel or worse, betrayed their gods, And so, the Sino-Soviet schism.
But was it only doctrinal, a battle over who represented the True Church? Yes, that was fundamental. And yet territorial disputes were equally important and fierce. Border clashes were not uncommon. Most communist parties had to contain furious ideological debates. Not all were resolved. Thus, the phenomenon of pro-Soviet and pro- China communist parties in many countries, in the "Third World" most of all. But the rival claims on real estate led to armed clashes, quite frequently. Evidently the bitterness of those 'mini-wars' and the rival claims to the True Church do not influence State policy i.e foreign policy.
Moscow watches, helplessly most of the time, the U.S-dominated Western alliance (NATO members) advance steadily into Eastern Europe, for nearly half a century the 'communist' buffer. That alliance was not just ideological but a military pact, a pact named after the capital of the largest country, Poland. And so a Warsaw Pact that confronted NATO. The American and western presence in these countries is already strong enough to disturb the Russian High Command. The fairly impressive performance of a wellknown Russian general at the presidential election which Boris Yeltsin won, was read by many advisers of Yeltsin as a warning. The "Red Army" may be recognised by the disillusioned, economically hard-pressed Russian workers (they get their pay, such as it is, months late!) as the last hope for Mother Russia. Russia borrows a Chinese slogan.....The East is Red.
Border issue
Having resolved a long-standing border conflict which had led to armed clashes throughout the 1960's the two countries agreed to implement a 12 billion-dollar joint project that will supply Siberian gas to China. They also found little difficulty in mapping out the 2,800 mile border on the basis of a 1991 accord which was not implemented all these years. Last week's accord closes that bitter chapter in China- Russia relations.
Has this much meaning for the rest of Asia..... the ASEAN countries and SAARC? Of course. China and India have fought bitter battles over disputed territories. India the south Asian giant, has clashed with China some decades ago. A steady improvement in Sino-Indian relations has contributed to regional peace and stability. The Indo-Pakstani conflict, and Kashmir have however defied the diplomats while the experts on Asia argue that domestic factors are at the heart of the re-definition of security policies and roles in East and South Asia. This view is held by Prof. Yasheng Huang of Michigan University who contributes a paper to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) held in Seoul a few years ago. But the collapse of the Soviet Union, I believe has had a far more de-stabilishing impact on 'the world order' than the experts anticipated.
New Disorder
The rapidly chaggnging Sino-Russian relationship is a particularly striking illustration. The current events and trends in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and in the Indian sub-continent underline what seems a commonplace. The Indo-Soviet treaty for example, is almost meaningless. Academics may be impressed by "multipolarity" as a convenient catch-all term but it does not recognise the disorder and instability that characterise the so -called New "World Order."
Afghanistan was Moscow's last misadventure. Of no interest now to the United States. Afghanistan is too near for comfort as seen by policy planners in Moscow, in Islamabad and Delhi, Iran, and of course the Muslim republics of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Disorder is the order of the day.....even for the United States, the sole superpower, still striving to overthrow the Castro regime in tiny Cuba by methods all- too well known.
Return to the News/Comment contents page
| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk