by Gabriel Kolko
We are now experiencing fundamental changes in the international system
whose implications and consequences may ultimately be as far-reaching as the
dissolution of the Soviet bloc.
The United States' strength, to a crucial extent, has rested on its ability
to convince other nations that it is to their vital interests to see America
prevail in its global role. But the scope and ultimate consequences of its
world mission, including its extraordinarily vague doctrine of "preemptive
wars," is today far more dangerous and open-ended than when Communism
existed. Enemies have disappeared and new ones--many once former allies and
even congenial friends--have taken their places. The United States, to a
degree to which it is itself uncertain, needs alliances, but these allies
will be bound into uncritical "coalitions of the willing."
So long as the future is to a large degree--to paraphrase Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld--"unknowable," it is not to the national interest of its
traditional allies to perpetuate the relationships created from 1945 to
1990. The Bush Administration, through ineptness and a vague ideology of
American power that acknowledges no limits on its global ambitions, and a
preference for unilateralist initiatives which discounts consultations with
its friends much less the United Nations, has seriously eroded the alliance
system upon which U. S. foreign policy from 1947 onwards was based. With the
proliferation of all sorts of destructive weaponry, the world will become
increasingly dangerous.
If Bush is reelected then the international order may be very different in
2008 than it is today, much less in 1999, but there is no reason to believe
that objective assessments of the costs and consequences of its actions
will significantly alter his foreign policy priorities over the next four
years.
If the Democrats win they will attempt in the name of internationalism to
reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslav war of
1999, when even the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers
built into the NATO system. America's power to act on the world scene
would therefore be greater. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser, Rand
Beers, worked for Bush's National Security Council until a year ago. More
important, Kerry himself voted for many of Bush's key foreign and domestic
measures and he is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and
interviews over the past weeks dealing with foreign affairs have been both
vague and incoherent. Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a
candidate or as someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's
foreign and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's
than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely
justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the foreign
policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been essentially consensual
on crucial issues--"bipartisan" as both parties phrase it--but they often
utilize quite different rhetoric.
. . . America will be more prudent and the world will be far safer only if
the Bush Administration is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated.
FULL TEXT
Gabriel Kolko is the leading historian of modern warfare. He is the author
of the classic
Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914 and
Another Century of War?.
"Realpolitik and Terrorism," The Wisdom Fund
AUDIO:
Stephen Kinzer, "All
the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,"
August 20, 2003
VIDEO: John Pilger,
The US and terrorism,
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 3, 2004
Rahul Mahajan, "War on Terrorism Makes
Us All Less Safe," CounterPunch, March 12, 2004
Ed McCullough, "Spain's Ruling Party
Ousted From Power After Terror Attack," Associated Press, March 14, 2004
[The American government is charged with "sacrificing human rights in the
name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, using
pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses". This draconian
approach, Amnesty says, has "damaged justice and freedom, and made the world
a more dangerous place".--Kim Sengupta, "Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging conflict in 50
years," Independent, March 27, 2004]
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, "The
Effect of the War in Iraq On America's Security," George Washington University,
September 27, 2004
Jonathan Steele, "
Annan attacks erosion of rights in war on terror: US and Britain in UN
secretary general's sights," Guardian, March 11, 2005
Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams, "C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of
Charter Flights," New York Times, May 31, 2005
Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, "Washington
recasts terror war as 'struggle'," International Herald Tribune, July
27, 2005
Jon Basil Utley, "Landmark Conference
Critiques War on Terror," CounterPunch, September 12, 2005