January 29, 2006
INFANTILIZED AND DEFENSELESS:
Hitching a free ride with the U.S. (Michael Mandelbaum, January 29, 2006, LA Times)
[T]he governments of Iran's Arab neighbors, which the Iranian regime has termed illegitimate and has tried in the past to subvert, have remained virtually silent about Tehran's nuclear program.The Western Europeans (whose territory Iran could strike), while expressing disappointment that their diplomatic efforts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program have failed, proclaim their opposition to the use of force for this purpose.
And Russia, which is also within striking distance of Iran and is fighting a Muslim insurgency in Chechnya — to which the Iranian regime, a notorious sponsor of terrorism, could some day supply nuclear materials — is balking at seeking a U.N. reprimand of Tehran.
The reason for this odd pattern of behavior is that the United States has come to assume wide responsibility for ensuring international security and global prosperity. In particular, it is the U.S. that has taken the lead in pursuing two goals that benefit all other countries and that the Iranian nuclear program threatens: limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and ensuring a steady supply of oil from the Middle East.
THESE ARE NOT the only tasks the United States carries out that benefit others. The U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia forestalls nuclear and conventional arms races between and among the countries there, and it creates the political confidence necessary for trade and investment to flourish. The American dollar is the world's most widely used currency. The United States supplies the largest and most open market for exports, access to which is vital for the well-being of other countries. In fact, the U.S. provides to other countries some, although not all, of the services that governments typically furnish to their own citizens. The U.S. has come to function as the world's government.
To be sure, the U.S. did not deliberately seek this role; it gradually grew out of American policies during the Cold War. Nor has the rest of the world ever officially approved this global American role. And the United States has never set out with the intention of furnishing benefits to others. The international initiatives it undertakes are designed to serve American interests. This they do — Iranian nuclear weapons would make the world a more dangerous place for the U.S., as well — but they also serve the interests of other countries.
Yet other countries do not acknowledge the benefits they receive from the United States because that could raise the question of why they don't pay more of the costs of supplying these benefits. No government would lightly abandon such a "free ride." So it is in the case of Iran's nuclear program.
Mr. Mandelbaum makes his case at greater length in his book, but we might just note that children shouldn't be expected to pay grown-ups to protect them. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2006 4:26 PM
Thomas Barnett in his book The Pentagon's New Map published a few years ago also states similar conclusions. He feels that the current economic globalization process that will ultimately lead to the spread of free markets and representative governments requires the free flow of people (labor), money (in the form of direct foreign investment), energy (oil), and security (supplied by the Pentagon). All of these are in the best interests of the USA but as Mandelbaum points benefits each nation that accepts our defacto defense umbrella. Why Russia and other nations don't openly accept this fact is still a mystery to me. Perhaps as the saying goes: its only the lead dog that has teeth marks on its behind.
Posted by: morry at January 29, 2006 5:46 PMIt is hard for nations whose consciousness is mired in the outdated fiction of "sovereignty" to accept the world government.
Because of the cost and complexity of weapons, the threshhold of military competence has been moved outside the reach of ordinary nations.
That they do not accept this gladly is no surprise. It was not that many years ago that France was a great power and the FORMER SOVIET UNION thought to be a superpower.
Their ressentiment is understandible. Understandible too is a certain feeling of insecurity, of contingency. They will get over; they will have to.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 29, 2006 7:24 PMWe got sucked into a competence vacuum.
Great comments ... and Morry I hope to read more from you.
Posted by: Genecis at January 29, 2006 9:45 PMWhy Russia and other nations don't openly accept this fact is still a mystery to me.
Russia is a failed empire, but still has not jettisoned her illusions of grandeur regarding what she feels is her superior culture and what she believes ought to be its role on the world (and especially the regional) stage.
She feels humiliated at having lost her empire, is unhappy at having bartered her resources to upstart oligarchs---many of them to her horror, Jews (though this helps feed the latent and not so latent historical feelings towards them, to be used to advantage)---and has every intention of muscling back into the arena. She may have lost the battle, but she refuses to admit that she has lost the war.
Moreover, permeated with paranoia, she believes that attempts to liberalize the Russian state mask overall western efforts to emasculate and control Russia, Russian culture and Russian resources, and deny her what is rightfully hers.
Until she herself is able to threaten countries (neighboring and those further away) with relative impunity, she will settle for supporting proxies who do the threatening, for her. This way, she can make scads of money, earn leverage (she believes), artfully sabotage the pacific goals of the (effete) west, subtly (and not so subtly) threaten her neighbors---to her, though, former subject countries---surgically ratchet up world tensions, and yet, quite extraordinarily, continue to take her place at the table of civilized, western nations.
And there are those who still talk about cooperation and wonder why Russia doesn't seem to be acting in her own interests. Gosh, it just doesn't make sense....
Think of it as "Brinksmanship: TNG"!
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 30, 2006 3:29 AM