So now Egypt is starting its revolution. I hope that I am wrong, but the scenario is likely to be familiar:
Revolutions tend to evolve from moderate to radical. In France, moderates such as Mirabeau, Danton and the Girondins were followed by Robespierre, the Jacobins and the Terreur. In Russia, Kerensky and the Mensheviks were eventually beaten by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In China, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalists were defeated by Mao Zedong and the Communists. In Iran, the moderate BaniSadr made way for Khomeini’s Theocracy.
In our day and age, the eventual outcome of many revolutions are ferociously anti-American regimes. America becomes the fall guy, because it had been holding up the previous regime, which was overturned.
I worry that this is also going to be the story in Egypt. One more country where the US will become “Satan America,” after having spent hundreds of billions of dollars to buttress its ancien regime.
And then, my question becomes: why on earth do we do this? The conventional wisdom is that:
(1) the US is the number-one imperialist, and that
(2) it is the US’ responsibility to hold up the world. The first of these beliefs is held by anti-Americans and the second one by our government.
They are both wrong:
1) For several decades now, the relationship between America and the rest of the world has been a massive transfer of wealth from the US to the rest of the world, a transfer which is now accelerating. If you ask me, this is imperialism in reverse.
2) Who anointed this country to police the world, to protect world commerce and to guarantee global stability? Why do we perform this costly job, with little assistance but much criticism from everyone else?
Is President Obama a captive of the Military-Industrial Complex? Why on earth did he escalate the war in Afghanistan, instead of getting out? Why are we still in Iraq?
The responsibility to hold up the world should be shared. It should be shared by the other giants of the planet - Europe, Japan, Russia - other emerging mega-states such as India and Brazil, and above all the country which will soon dwarf the US - China.
But is India desperately trying, as we are, to stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan - countries which are far greater threats to it than to us? No.
Is Brazil trying to do anything about the drug wars in Latin America, which are making countries such as Mexico and Colombia near-failed states? No.
Above all, is China doing anything, devoting any resources, to make the world a safer place, or is it doing one thing and one thing only: that which benefits China?
Why is it America’s unique responsibility to hold up the world?
For this country, only two things make sense: (1) a drastic pull-back from world commitments, and (2) cooperation with others, if possible, in international affairs. But if others are not interested in cooperation, so be it.
Yes, what I am talking about here is that dreaded word - isolationism. So be it. America may need the world, but by virtue of history, size, resources and geography, it is still less vulnerable than most. Do China, Europe and Japan not need oil?
This essay will disappoint my liberal friends. Sorry. But to be in places where we are not wanted, where we don’t like to be, and which cost us lives and treasure, is called insanity. leave comment here
4 comments:
Hi Tom,
I am afraid you are really way to proud of your dear USA.
The centre of your mistake is in this sentence: "For several decades now, the relationship between America and the rest of the world has been a massive transfer of wealth from the US to the rest of the world, a transfer which is now accelerating."
It is simply not possible to say how US foreign involvement influences your wealth, which direction it is transferred. I believe your suggestion of ungrateful people is a big mistake.
There are numerous reasons why it is a complex matter. I will mention some issues, how you try to shift wealth from abroad to the US with your foreign policy.
Influence on oil prices is one of the most important reasons of supporting dictatorships in the middle east, not philantropy. If Arab countries would double (or more) the oil price, it would be good for the environment, good for there economies (certainly in the long term), but a disaster for US economy. So you spend billions to keep a massive army base in Saoudi Arabia and keep a dictator there powerful. Don't forget BinLaden's struggle started to get the US army out of Saoudi Arabia, that is what angered him and to me that is reasonable.
(Apart from all the wars you fought and stimulated where ethics played a role, but oil prices perhaps a bigger role.)
Another reason you are spending so much in the middle east is to protect Israel. The resources it costs the US is immense and the moral justness of supporting this regime can be more and more questioned. (Especially from a Palestinian point of view.)
To look beyond the middle east, you try to create open markets in many developing countries. There is all kind of benefits to it, but one is so local people will buy sneakers, made in china, designed by the west. The downside is many local shoe makers loose there daily income, as well as the cultural poverty of having sneakers everywhere around the world.
You say China thinks only about its own interests, opposed as you do. The Chinese say they try to influence other regimes as little as possible, but they claim to have created more wealth in Africa than we do with all our development aid. They do business with dictators, but by exploiting countries they built more (rail)roads than the west does. (Even though Chinese budgets are still dwarfed by the Western combined budget.)
The goal of foreign affairs is to create a win-win situation and development aid is just a part of that. I am afraid that internal benefits are more precious to you than foreign, if you really have to choose sides. (I know in Holland lot of our development aid money has a label it can only be spend to Dutch citizens.)
I hope you can agree with me that the USA is not as philanthropical as you suggest.
To get to your other point about sharing responsibility. There is a club for this and it is called the United Nations. It has a very nice philosophy although I strongly preferred Kofi above Ban. Sure there are problems of corruption there, but the USA tried to discredit the UN even more by spotlighting them. I believe the UN with all it's corruption made a better decision if it was wise and legal to attack Iraq in 2003, but the USA ignored the international policing institute, putting it decades back in time by means of relevance.
But it is worse. Your so deep in the shit with dictators everywhere and with the case of Israel that you can't leave to isolationism anymore. People will take revenge, justified or not.
Also your view on revolutions is not one I share. The starting point of a revolution is always a dramatic situation I would say. That is what starts a big change.
If you look however to the revolutions in '89 in Eastern Europe they haven't become radical. In many ways you could call the end of the apartheid regime a revolution.
The French revolution might have caused much violence and terror. The separation of powers, a more equal society, the metric system and family names can also be traced to it.
Also in this case I have more trust than you. My hopes are El baradei will do a good job. But we will see.
Touche Tom! Right on the mark. Unfortunately you have only skillfully enumerated the right questions...............no answers. I'll just mention 2 important facts that I believe are critical for any future action.
1. The world is becoming smaller. We must be able to get along with other countries and cultures.
2. Thankfully we can still "walk softly but carry a big stick."
Keep up the art of debate Tom. It's good for our well being.
Tom Bridges
Thanks, Tom.
Johhny and I have continued our debate on the next post.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!