March 27, 2004
THE PRO-SOVIET PERSPECTIVE THAT IS:
Rethinking the United States — A European Perspective (Helmut Schmidt, March 23, 2004, The Globalist)
Some people in the United States believe that 9/11 changed the world. But that's not quite true, says former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Rather, it deeply changed the way in which Americans perceive the outside world. His analysis is all the more relevant one year after the start of the Iraq War.On September 11, 2001, despite all of their power —and for the first time in many generations — Americans suffered from a violent attack on its own soil. This experience led the U.S. leadership to use their enormous military power to fight the so-called “war on terrorism.”
As a result, tendencies toward hegemonic behavior vis-à-vis other nations appear to have come to the forefront.
An imperialist element within the foreign policy of the United States has always co-existed with isolationism, and also with internationalist idealism (which is nowadays called “multilateralism”). Sometimes, one of these elements prevailed — and sometimes another.
Even for someone as historically hostile to the American mission as Mr. Schmidt, it's remarkable how quickly he strays into error. Note the assumption that multilateralism is the idealist position. In fact, American imperialism is more idealistic -- seeking to impose liberal democracy unilaterally -- where internationalism has historically allowed Europe to thwart our efforts. So, for instance, Mr. Schmidt was reluctant to site the new generation of missiles that helped win the Cold War and eager to help the USSR with the oil pipeline which would have supplied them with desperately needed hard currency and prolonged the War. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 27, 2004 3:09 PM
One thing that annoys me about the "unilateral/multilateral" discussion is that the left is usually so eager to do things in a unilateral way. All their heroes are people like Rosa Parks, MLK, etc., who went against the law and/or the majority to do what is right. Fine, but when the U.S. defends itself against terrorists and takes down bloody dictators? Oh my no, we must wait for consensus! How dare we we act without permission of the majority!
Posted by: PapayaSF at March 27, 2004 3:37 PMHelmut also writes that no nation, no matter how powerful, will be able to unilaterally handle the largest problems of the coming century.
I agree, IF the US continues to act with the same consideration for local custom or culture, and attempts to avoid civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, as we do now.
However, should Americans ever decide that their actual survival, personally or as a nation, is at stake, and the gloves come off, then the US can handle it unilaterally, if need be.
If it's us or them, it's crystal clear that it's going to be them.
In order for terrorists or other opponents to harm the US, they have to count on Americans responding in a civilized manner.
PapayaSF, excellent point... I never considered that before.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 28, 2004 12:02 AMDon't you just love former Wehrmacht officers under Hitler who complain about the hegemonic traditions in American foreign policy?
This is classic Club of Rome-like stuff. He manages to avoid any mention of terrorisn, the intifada, or any actual threat the world is facing today and deflects the debate towards wispy theoretical leftist Armegeddons like climate change and the "coming" population explosion. As Orrin notes, multilateralism is ipso facto good without any need to measure its effectiveness. Hitchens skewered this kind of thinking nicely when he noted that, if the world ever truly got serious about hunger in Africa, the relief would have to be delivered by American planes.
What he is really saying is that Iraqis should still be dying en masse so that Europeans can continue to pretend they are great powers. Old habits die hard.
Posted by: Peter B at March 28, 2004 7:17 AM