America in the World | Notable arguments

Victor Davis Hanson: Right now, Europeans have the best of both worlds

Even some of Europe's elites who are so critical of America will often grudgingly acknowledge America's value, argues Victor Davis Hanson in The American.

"Europeans understand that there are advantages to the present relationship between a militarily powerful America and its hypercritical but mostly unarmed European dependent."

"Right now, Europeans have the best of both worlds—an easily caricatured but very cooperative United States. Indeed, Europeans have found relatively little fault in Bush’s second term, during which time conservative governments have taken office in France, Germany, and Italy. The United States has been sending massive AIDS relief to Africa, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Europe on Darfur, pursuing peaceful diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, and offering gracious thanks for European participation in Afghanistan. And who else in the West, other than the United States, is Vladimir Putin worried about?"

"For all their grievances against Bush, Europeans realize that most of the world’s problems either antedated or transcend the current U.S. president and will be here long after he’s gone. Gas prices skyrocketed largely because both importing and exporting governments have not invested enough in petroleum maintenance and new exploration, and because of the voracious appetites of new consumer classes in China and India. Rogue regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have enough oil wealth that they need not care about the consequences of irritating the West. Bush did not cause global warming, soaring food prices, Islamic terrorism, or the rise of China. And blaming him for the “fiasco” in Iraq is also problematic: the violence there has declined enormously, and Iraqi democracy continues to move forward."

"A few Europeans even acknowledge that, contrary to popular belief, the Iraq war has not “created” jihadists who migrated to Europe. In fact, it has done just the opposite: radical Islamists more often traveled to Iraq—many of them from Europe—where they were killed in large numbers. Iraq, in other words, may well help explain the weakening of al-Qaeda and its increasing inability to replicate the London and Madrid bombings."

John Lewis Gaddis: America must aspire to end tyranny

In the latest edition of The American Interest, Yale's John Lewis Gaddis has a comprehensive account of America's historical role in promoting democracy and opposing tyranny.

Gaddis begins by noting that the normal expectation as the Bush Administration closes ought to be that he will bequeath no foreign policy doctrine to his successors. Very few do - arguably this could be claimed only of President Monroe and President Truman. If Bush leaves a doctrine behind, it will be understood in terms of his second inaugural address: “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”.

Prerequisites for democracy
Gaddis explains some of the reasons history has shown such a doctrine can prove problematic:

"Periclean Athens, which blundered into and then lost the Peloponnesian War, and the Roman Republic, which sank so deeply into corruption and violence that its citizens welcomed the benign authoritarianism of Caesar Augustus.

"It’s not just ancient precedents, though ... World War I, which laid so much of the groundwork for despotism, began with widespread public enthusiasm. A free election brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany in 1933, and he retained the support of most Germans well into the war he started. A persistent American fear throughout the Cold War was that much of the rest of the world might voluntarily choose communism; that led to enlightened counter-measures like the Marshall Plan, but also to unsavory alliances with anti-communist dictators. And the post-Cold War collapse of Yugoslavia together with the events in Rwanda evoked an even more disturbing vision: that people could hate one another to such an extent that ethnic cleansing, even genocide, might have democratic roots.

"Today it seems clear that the people of Russia, if they could have re-elected their increasingly authoritarian President, would overwhelmingly have done so ... Reasonably fair elections have at last been held in the Middle East, but the results have empowered Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and—despite the courage with which Iraqis risked their lives to vote in three successive elections in 2005—a government in Baghdad that has yet to establish order despite the full military support of the United States and its coalition allies.

"So if ending tyranny is what you want to accomplish, promoting democracy in and of itself may not be enough. Something more seems to be required."

To survive, Gaddis argues, democracy first requires the prerequisites identified by Fareed Zakaria in The Future of Freedom: "personal security, political stability, economic sustainability, the rule of law, the sanctity of contracts, a working constitutional structure. You can’t just topple a tyrant, hold an election and expect a democracy to emerge. How, then, did the idea get started that democracy could sprout where it had no roots?"

Kim Holmes: The choice for America is between global leadership and deference to international consensus

In a column for the Washington Times last week, Kim Holmes of The Heritage Foundation set out his view of the choice America must make about her role in the world:

"In America, there are basically two competing visions. One -- based on our history and the ideas and founding principles embodied in our Constitution -- is of a nation that safeguards and advances the cause of liberty. The other is of an America whose leadership always defers to international bodies, including the whims of the United Nations and the European Union.

"All Americans should reflect on this: If we do not take up the burden of leadership, who will? And, who would we rather have make decisions over our lives?

"If we allow our actions to be determined by other nations that aspire to some evolving idea of 'international law' and 'international consensus,' we should not be surprised by their indifference to our security.

"In such a world, the UN could block a raid we want to conduct to destroy a terrorist camp that launched another brutal attack on America. Or our Secretary of State could be hauled up before a European court to answer charges of 'war crimes' in Iraq.

"The UN or other international body even could decide how Texas, Florida or any other state in the union convicts criminals or manages prisons."

Daniel Larison: US interests do not dictate entering into open conflict with Pakistan

As Pakistani troops are deployed to repulse future American incursions, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative notes the support within both of American's main parties for continuing to send American troops into Pakistan to fight the Taliban:

"[T]hese incursions have been administration policy for the better part of a year, and they are the recommended policy of a future Obama administration, and the conventional wisdom among both Bush and Obama supporters is that this is a brilliant idea.  Trotskyites and Obamacons agree–stand up to Pakistan!  By stand up, of course, they must mean fight, since that is what implementing their plan will require.

... [This situation] requires reconsidering what U.S. interests dictate, and it seems fairly clear that they do not dictate entering into open conflict with the Pakistani military.  Were our forces to engage Pakistan’s military, the consequences would be dire for the cohesion of the country, which is indeed every bit as artificial and unstable as Iraq, and for regional stability.  Let’s be very clear about this: if we stir up Pakistan against our presence in that part of the world, we will end up losing whatever gains we have made in Afghanistan and will turn one of the largest Muslim states in the world, and the only one with nuclear weapons, from an unreliable ally to an open enemy."

Osama bin Laden: The irresistibility of weakness

Hardly a new argument but no less notable for that.  Here are Osama bin Laden's words from the summer of 1996 and his view that America had become weak:

"Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists". We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours! But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu."

Justin Webb: The world wants the modernity that America provides

Justin Webb, BBC North America Editor, from his book on anti-Americanism, Have A Nice Day:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, criticises Americans in 2008 for being less-caring imperialists than even the British had been. He went further. The problem was wider than American imperialism: Western modernity itself "is eating away at the soul". I like Western modernity. It allows my children to survive diseases that would have killed them only decades ago. It creates educational opportunities their ancestors never had; opportunities for leisure and fun and fulfilment. And it is protected, guaranteed around the world (to the extent that it is guaranteed at all) mainly by American power. It is not guaranteed by China or Russia or Tehran or Brussels. Yes, this modernity, particularly at its American extreme, also creates opportunities for type 2 diabetes and crushing ennui, and for the kind of queasy feelings from which the gentle Archbishop apparently suffers. But to focus on the downside of Western modernity is not to tell the whole story. People want it. And America provides it."

David Frum: China won't "catch up" any time soon

David Frum, writing for Foreign Policy:

"If the US economy continues to grow at its recent average of 3% a year, even a booming China will not overtake US GDP for half a century. If China's growth rate slows, the moment of "catch up" recedes even further into the future. Such a slowdown seems inevitable. China's financial sector is rickety to the point of collapse, inflation is accelerating, and the country is quickly bumping up against the limits of low-wage manufacturing. Energy and water shortages are rampant. Environmental degradation is escalating into a serious political issue. Political tensions between the central and regional governments are intensifying. And, very soon, China's aging population will have to leave work and begin tapping into its savings. Even if China somehow escapes the laws of economic gravity, what precisely is an American president to do about it? Try to stunt China's growth? How? And to what end?"

Matthew Yglesias: The trouble with 'pro-American'

Matthew Yglesias of the Center for American Progress notes the pitfalls of assuming world leaders' attitudes towards the United States are their chief motivation:

"[There is a] tick in American discourse of labeling foreign leaders “pro-American” or “anti-American” as if America is likely to be the primary thing on their mind. But obviously when you’re talking about actors on the other side of the world they’re probably mostly worried about other stuff. People in Pakistan are thinking about India. Indians are thinking about Pakistan and China. Not that they don’t have opinions about the United States, but these kind of considerations are secondary to the main point.

"[I]t’s wrong to look at every situation around the world where some country’s perception of its interests goes against what the United States wants to see happen and then label that behavior as “anti-American.” Countries are going to do things we [Americans] don’t like, in which case it will often be appropriate for us to push-back. But absent actual evidence that the thing we don’t like is genuinely being undertaken with specific anti-American intent there’s no reason to pathologize behavior as driven by an anti-American agenda."

Deen and Landberg: Russia's war with Georgia may revive US-Europe rift

Mark Deen and Reed V. Landberg report for Bloomberg that issues such as European countries' military overstretch and dependence on natural gas from Russia may limit Europe's willingness to support the United States over Georgia:

"Both Europe and the U.S. have serious concerns about Russia and will try to sing from the same hymn sheet,'' said Mick Cox, an international relations professor at the London School of Economics. "Yet the differences of nuance are there, and they matter. Russia is keen to exploit them."    

With memories of the trans-Atlantic spat over Iraq still fresh, all parties want to avoid a repeat. Even so, the EU's proximity to Russia and economics make it harder for the bloc to rebuff its neighbor.    

Trade between Russia and the EU jumped 23 percent in 2007 to $284 billion, making the EU Russia's biggest trading partner and Russia the bloc's third-largest partner. The EU also depends on Russia to supply a quarter of its natural gas.

Fareed Zakaria argues that the next president cannot simply reverse existing policies

Writing in Newsweek, Zakaria claims:

"[B]lanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality... The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed. This has happened without acknowledgment—which is partly what drives critics crazy—and it's often been done surreptitiously. It doesn't reflect a change of heart so much as an admission of failure; the old way simply wasn't working. But for whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them."