JohnFlint1985

Alliances In Ruins?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 16, 2007; Page A33


When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.

Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?

France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but also with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.

All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the past half-century.

So much for the disarray of our alliances.

The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.

So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.

It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.

What's changed in the past year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.

The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all. It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the United Nations. It is success or failure in Iraq.


washingtonpost.com

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

akinkhoo

That map is really a questionable model. just read it on wikipedia: like why japan is on it own while the exsoviet are group together when their relationship is falling apart?

I see US and EU spliting up as EU work to absorb ex-soviet state.
Russian influence will be limited to central asia.
ASEAN will try and balance asia between india and china (siding with the weaker than status quo while not entering into any alliance)
Australia will also distance itself from US to being neutral as it depends on asian trade.

Stan187

Can anyone tell me exactly is says that Huntington considers Israel a possibly separate civilization with Western features?

I'm trying to use that in my thesis, but no one ever sources a citation. Which one of his essays is it in, and where in it?

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Thiseas

1) there is no country under the name "Macedonia"
2) In case they haven't noticed Greece is a memper of the EU since late '70
3) albania isn't a muslem country, it was a comunist country (atheists) and now they are muslems, catholics and orthodox as well as atheists
4)In a world where religion devides people in such a way as the above, nothing can be certain.
5)If religion gets to be so important to people, as to divide them to spheres, there would be terrible wars, as we all know, religion wars are the worst.

Thiseas

Why sould europeans think anythink different for americans?
rememper american planes flying over Rome?
rememper the greek dictatorship?
rememper the German cities that you destroyed while the second WW was already over ?
Isn't Europe that has the highest education lvls?
Isn't the Euro more expensive than U.S dollar?
Isn't Russia in Europe geograpfically?
Quality of life in Europe(Open eyed in greek) is by far better than any place else, (along with us and japan and then only if you think of matterial thinks only)

Ironduke

Have you read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? I'd recommend doing a full read before making an argument on behalf of his analysis. Standing opposite of Huntington is Fukuyama's The End of History.

Fukuyama argues that liberal democracy will eventually triumph throughout the world, while Huntington maintains that the main source of conflict will be among different civilizations lead by their respective core states (of which Latin America, Africa, and Islam are completely lacking).

I've thoroughly read Huntington's work, and there are a lot gross cultural generalizations, the type of which have been consistently disproved by future course of events. For example, Latin America and Iberia were seen to be corporatist, authoritarian, devoutly religious, etc., as late as 1970, that these were intrinsic flaws in the cultures that were unlikely to be overcome. And yet within 15 years, liberal democracy was established in virtually every one of those countries. There are many parallels between Latin America/Iberia of then and the Islamic world of now... I see the Islamic world of potentially following the same course.

Instead of Russia being a core state of the Orthodox civilization with other Orthodox states bandwagoning around it as Huntington predicted was likely, we have seen that Greece has remained in the EU, Romania and Bulgaria have joined, Ukraine has liberalized and is negotiating a path towards the EU and away from Russia, Georgia as well. Russia plays what cards it can, but it only has a few hands with which it can play.

At any rate, in the 14 years since his article was published, 11 years since the book, their really hasn't been much in the course of events to validate his hypothesis.

This isn't anything civilization-related, its balancing, plain and simple. The US and India will align themselves together to balance growing Chinese power in the region. Nothing new, China aligned itself with the United States in the 1970s to balance to the Soviet Union, as India aligned itself with the USSR to balance the West in the 1950s.
Russia's been on the rebound recently if you hadn't noticed -- it has recovered from the economic shocks of the 1990s. GDP per capita has moved into the higher end of the middle-income countries. The fertility rate has rebounded to 1.4 children/woman and shows signs of growing more. There were 1 million live births in Russia last year. The death rate has fallen drastically. Its population shows signs it will stabilize in the near future.
With Putin's rebuilding, the Russian military is a potent threat, and even if it wasn't, Russia has enough nukes to deter acts of aggression by its neighbors. The only "neighbors" who may covet Russian territory is China, who wouldn't dream of it after they had their asses handed to them in the 70s.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Ironduke

No chance in hell Europe is going to go the way of Russia... there's a better chance that Russia would go the way of the EU.

Feanor

Only if a Kasparov-style liberal мразь wins the elections.

Thiseas

Well in the far future and if humanity avoids a religion-based catastrophe, Russia might have to get closer to Europe, as there are more that they have in common with the Europeans than any other major player.
That would be a blessing for both,and for the world.

JohnFlint1985

Interesting opinion. I don't share your optimism about Russia. Also I do see that Huntington has a point in many conflicts that happening today. I think that his work should not be taken literally to the letter or used as a guide to everything. Bit in general I see no conflict with his theories. His map has to revised, but other than that the "rift" lines stay.
P.S. I don't have time right now to write a more detailed answer. I hope I will be able to do this in a couple days.

Feanor

Europe is old and dying. I see no reason why my country should join them.

HistoricalDavid

Russia is old and dying also?

__________________
HD Ready?

Feanor

The hope is that we can reverse that trend. Because if we can't joining Europe will not save us.

JohnFlint1985

I thought about what you said and I can equally agree and disagree with that. Huntington theory that any future conflict will go along civilization lines as he draw them on the map – is indeed a generalization and should be revised. Most of his civilization blocks have internal differences and disputes – so we will not see a unified front in any possible clash. But this united front may not be there because of the one of the countries government position which can choose to remain friendly to another civilization due to whatever reason. In the same time population of the same country can support moving along with their “brethren” from other members of the civilization as a united movement. So in other words government will say no, but popular opinion will say yes. So in a way this is dual truth, so to speak. In details his theory is wrong, but in general it has a point.
What you call balancing also can be argued. I agree with your logic – but it is not only India for example that is trying to get together with USA against possible Chinese problems in the future. It is also Vietnam, Korea, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan (which is not truly part of only Islamic civilization). Even Japan which was feared by some in USA in 1980s for its economic pressures has changed its position and is much more accommodating today with USA partly due to the strengthening China. So here you go - you have a whole block of countries which are trying to balance, as you put it, Chinese influence. Smaller members group around bigger ones – but it is very close to his scenarios for civilization conflicts. What I see wrong in his theory is that – we should not paint the whole civilization by the same brush – it has rather different shades – so it is not a united entity.
Coming back to Russia. Russia today is quickly becoming much more aggressive and dangerous to its former republics than it used to be. Take Ukraine for example. It is equally divided between opposing Russia and supporting Russia. So it may turn out to be a part of a bigger Orthodox front against the west like Huntington predicted or it may go other way by getting even cozier with the west.
Unfortunately I didn’t read Fukuyama and cannot argue on the merits of his book – but in my mind Huntington do have a point. Despite his generalizations and mistakes in the way he produced his broad civilizations – the fault lines that he was describing are most of the time very precise. But once again - it is a matter of an opinion.