At the time the September 11th terrorist attacks occurred, the United States was turning inward as part of a trend toward disengagement from the global community that appeared both stable and safe, i.e. America no longer wanted, and needed, to be the world police. A year ago, Americans were welcoming the end of the very costly, largely disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as we rejected a call to arms in Syria over the use of chemical weapons, experienced a short-lived government shutdown, and struggled with the Edward Snowden NSA revelations. Today, the United States, once again, finds itself intervening in the Middle East to combat a very serious terrorist threat thanks to the Islamic State.
Truthfully, the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, because the United States failed to address the very real threat of globalized terrorist while the same can be said of all other terrorist attacks that have happened throughout the world. Factoring in the Great Recession, dysfunctional political systems across the world, the Arab Spring revolution, the Ukraine Crisis, and so many other issues, it becomes clear that these crises have arisen, because national leaders have failed to recognize and address critical faults in public policies. By neglecting either our own broad interests or the interests of others, these crises are very much the consequences of failed governance and leadership over decades. No longer able to compensate for bad policies, the world has been experiencing a catastrophic recalibration of neglected interests. Having “cleared the air,” the governments and Peoples of the world may now be able to address their grievances instead of suppressing the need to deal with neglected interests. In many respects, renewed engagement on behalf of the United States is the type of intervention that should have been undertaken by George W. Bush Administration following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of using American might to impose regime change and nation-building in order to “create” allies, the United States is returning to a foreign policy mission based on “making the world safe for democracy.” If Middle Eastern governments are ever going to address and properly balance the interests of their Peoples, if the Peoples of the Middle East are ever going to realize the dream of the Arab Springs, the US needs to help strengthen the International Community it built to foster stability, peace, and freedom for all. That said, the rest of the world must do the same by disarming threats and rebuilding weak partnerships. Ensuring international security will require strategic military interventions when destabilizing forces pose serious threats while success hinges on the unwillingness of the International Community and individual nations to see the value in protecting their homeland from the threat of terrorism as well as serving their Peoples as all modern governments must. As such, we need to start questioning if those willing to go after the Islamic State are also willing to pursue other terrorist organizations as well as state-sponsors of terrorism in general. After all, the Islamic State is only the most pressing terrorist threat at the moment. We must also revive the debate over addressing critical domestic issues and other ways in which allies can engage in constructive cooperation. Unfortunately, the Middle East is in shambles, the global economy is weak, Soviet-era thinking threatens to polarize the world once again, and our International Community of nation-states is facing multiple terrorists that can only be undermined to the point terrorist groups are no longer viable entities. In spite of this seemingly terrible news, our globalized world is awakening to the need to address its global interests instead of largely depending on the United States to eventually take action. A few years ago, the exercise of US power and a Russia seeking military supremacy would create a major conflict of interests; however, the exercise of America power, especially to support our partners and their Peoples, can help strengthen America as cooperation is what the United States has always derived its strength from. Although President Obama had envisioned a different direction for US engagement, the United States must play the hand we have been dealt. If the world can use cooperation to address globalized terrorism as we needed to years ago, we should be in a better position to cooperate on other global issues, such as economic development. Moreover, the world faces great uncertainty in a time when the United States and the International Community are facing major threats to peace and stability, yet the reality that there appears to be greater support for America’s top international priorities, which are also largely top concerns of the International Community, demonstrates the Peoples and governments of the world may well finally see the need to support their own national security and international security interests as America learned 13years ago.
Comments
The Obama Administration is truly showing American leadership with airstrikes on Islamic State targets and its efforts to form a coalition of partners to combat the threat of the terrorist group as Arab League members are formally recognizing they have a responsibility in protecting their national security interests and Iraq makes progress on forming a government. It appears our world leaders are actually trying solve a crisis. We must, of course, question if the cooperation materializing, in ways this writer has promoted, will lead to the realization that the Islamic State is not the only threat in the Middle East that must be confronted by an international coalition. That said, news of renewed international problem-solving efforts built on the pursuit of mutual national interests certainly helps rebuild faith in our governing institutions.
Unfortunately, the international effort to take on the Islamic State appears to be making more progress than efforts at home to deal with America’s problems. Acting outraged and shocked by the Obama Administration’s decision to delay taking Executive action on illegal immigration due to the upcoming mid-term elections after pledging to take action at the end of summer, pundits should have recognized politics had already halted progress while members of Congress have absolutely no right to criticize the Obama Administration for not stepping in to do their job. This mid-term election is not defined by national issues, thus voters are focused on their local interests while the President tackling immigration his way would only nationalize the election to the detriment of constituents needing representation on local issues. Frankly, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle should be having a conversation on illegal immigration during this election season, whether or not the President is doing so. It is, however, curious how the Obama Administration can show leadership in the Middle East, yet not at home. Regrettably, it is often easier to deal with someone else’s problems than our own, because we can divorce ourselves from the emotion, stress, and complications of the situation in order to see a solution more clearly. As such, the unrelenting dysfunction of the US Congress, which is built on extremely divisive, angry partisan politics and personal grudges, makes it terribly difficult to work with members of Congress. Over the last few months to weeks, the governments of the Middle East have started to recognize the need for balance and cooperation while this shift in governing philosophy is resonating well with the Peoples of the Middle East who are weary of oppression and violence. In other words, it is possible to lead, because people see the value in proper governance, which means the Middle East is now more receptive to outside guidance/intervention and sensible arguments for taking action against the Islamic State That said, a great deal of America’s dysfunctional governance also stems from a lack of faith in available solutions as well as government in general. Politicians rarely devise solutions to problems; they build policies based expert opinion and research. Unfortunately, the US has not seen a great deal of the novel thinking needed to address our mounting problems. Instead, our national leaders have been forced to use regurgitated solutions that have had both successes and failures in the past. The implication of this reality is a lack of trust in these solutions by various parties, thus every solution on the table has both fans and critics who conflict when these solutions are adapted to solve novel problems that they may or may not be able to properly address. Consequently, America’s political dysfunction and lack of domestic leadership requires some faith building. This can only be accomplished by building novel- solutions to public policy issues based on open-discussions designed to explore the uncharted realities and novel issues we face in our brave new world. Moreover, the leadership and cooperation being seen over the Islamic State threat needs to be seen when it comes to other international crises as well as domestic issues. It appears Russia may well be willing to accept peace in Ukraine on Putin’s terms; however, the West and Ukraine are wise not to trust any ceasefire given the crescendoing of events in Ukraine. Efforts to prepare for a prolonged power struggle, notably NATO’s Rapid-Reaction Force and far more damaging sanctions against Russia, act as both a disincentive and prudent precaution against further Russian intervention in Ukraine. On the other hand, Western action, when failing to consider Russia’s far more provocative, preemptive actions against Ukraine, does appear to support the views of those who believe Russia is the victim of a Western conspiracy to use Ukraine as a pretext to sabotage Russia’s economy and neuter the Russian military.
Whether sympathizing with Ukraine and the West and/or the rebels and Russia, a thorough resolution to the Ukraine Crisis serves the interests of everyone. That said, a ceasefire is simply not enough as any true resolution to the Ukraine Conflict must eventually address the potential for long-term threats to Ukraine’s sovereignty, national security, and Peoples. For Russia, a resolution of the Ukraine Conflict must eventually progress toward an international discussion on Russia’s legitimate, longstanding grievances it has with the West, which it clearly has not appropriately expressed over the last few months. For Ukraine and the West, there needs to be safeguards in place to ensure Russia will face immediate consequences should it so blatantly violate the sovereignty of its neighbors again. In truth, no party will get what it wants when the Ukraine Crisis is finally resolved. The Ukraine government and Peoples will be forced to sacrifice a portion of their sovereignty to appease Putin’s demands for greater autonomy in the East. Pro-Russian separatists will, of course, be forced to accept Ukrainian rule in order to afford Putin a foothold into Ukraine’s political system, thereby creating an opportunity for him to eventually dominate Ukrainian politics once again. Russia, in turn, may win the propaganda war it started with Putin claiming the role of hero, yet the West will ultimately win on a strategic level. Russia does not want Ukraine to have closer ties with the West; however, the Ukraine Crisis has already strengthened ties between the West and Kiev while the political leaders of the current and emerging generations will never forget the annexation of Crimea, thus Russia pays a hefty global price. Furthermore, the more the conflict persists, the more pro-Western Ukraine will become while Ukraine’s future as a full-fledged NATO member may already be a certainty to the chagrin of Russia. Beyond international security interests, the West has also been alerted to the threat of Russian dominance, which means close allies like China are seen as potential threats that must now be addressed. Even though the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing reinvigorated interest from the West, this attention stems from the unfortunate reality that these regions are in a state of duress, thus they, and the West, cannot significantly benefit in terms of regional development until the destructive forces driving their crises can be brought in check. Then again, trades losses in Russia and China can be an opportunity for the rest of Africa, South America, and India, among other Asian countries. In other words, the US and Europe need to shift their economic focus to these regions in order to both address the long-term threats posed by relying too heavily and too narrowly on partners that undermine vital national interests of Western countries as well as current loses from taking action against Russia. As the West closes old markets, which it must always do to some degree when national interests are misaligned with relationships, the West needs to open markets in other areas of the world. This is, of course, not to suggest the West should thoroughly isolate China or even Russia, but there is a misalignment in international relationships with these nations, as well as others, that demands less entanglement until these relationships warrant closer economic ties. Moreover, the Ukraine Crisis will be resolved sooner or later, but the far-reaching consequences, which will be quite significant, of the conflict must be addressed with prudent measures that recognize the realities of the situation as well as constructive, proactive policies of engagement, on the behalf of everyone, that can help repair the damage done. It would appear terribly counterproductive for the Islamic State to provoke Russia at a time when they are already facing US airstrikes and a Middle East rallying against them. Clearly, it is a means of declaring their intent to be a global threat while most would write it off as ambition rooted in delusion. Still others might even question if the Islamic State is possibly trying to unite Russia and the West against a common threat to foster eventual peace.
Beyond dismissing this little tidbit of news as a gesture of bravado, there may well be some strategic thinking behind drawing Russia into a fight. Although Russia may be known for its far more vicious, brutal approach to addressing terrorism, much of which the West would consider just as unacceptable as actual terrorism, Russia is far less capable than the US of leading a coalition of forces and tactical operations. Meanwhile, Russia entering the fight against the Islamic State during a time when the West and Russia are conflicting over Ukraine would create another potential flash point for a world war, thus it would discourage the US from escalating its intervention against the Islamic State. As such, it would also discourage Russian partners, i.e. Syria and Iran, from indirectly cooperating with the United States, thereby undermining any form of regional cooperation. Furthermore, the Islamic State could be turning its attention toward Russia, so Americans no longer see the Islamic State as a viable threat to the West. Given the release of the videos featuring the gruesome murders of journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff were intended to intimidate Americans, such motivations are plausible. Finally, recognizing the behavior of the Islamic State parallels that of the Mexican drug cartels, it is clear the world can expect increasingly brutal violence from the Islamic State. While China proclaims itself to be the world’s largest communist country, it is more capitalistic in its political and decision-making processes than most capitalist countries. Corporations, as near ideal capitalist organizations, function in such a way that they solely pursue their economic interests, unlike many individual or family owned business that often reflect the emotional and social concerns of their owners.
In many respects, the Chinese government sets policies and makes political decisions like a CEO and board of investors would. Despite the fact the role of the US president has been described as America’s CEO, the US government always acts far more in step with the emotional and social concerns of Americans than what is most in our Country’s economic interests; whereas, the Chinese government acts without regard to the emotional and human social needs of the Chinese People, i.e. what they want. The capitalistic nature of China is illustrated particularly well by the manner in which the Chinese government treats Hong Kong. Unlike mainland China where people are accustomed to the central and local governments doing what they see as most efficient, and/or what is in the interests of public officials, without any meaningful input from their customers, i.e. the Chinese People, the People of Hong Kong have been democratized. With the People of Hong Kong believing government exists to serve the People and that requires the uncensored input of the People, China must either give these territories full autonomy or risk the spread of their democratic thinking in the spotlight of China taking their rights away. In order to maintain the economic stability for its territory by forcing candidates to be vetted by China’s 1200 member election committee, Beijing has decided truly democratic elections cannot exist in Hong Kong. This latest decision is, of course, built on China’s very corporate justification for taking over Hong Kong based on a 99-year lease agreement with Britain. Under the principles of communism, every citizen is supposed to be entitled to their own equal “share” in their country’s wealth; whereas, capitalist democracies are supposed to use market mechanisms to most efficiently distribute their national wealth, which is owned by all citizens as a collective. Unlike democracy, however, communism does not function on citizen input due to its authoritarian nature, thus the state must try to understand the interests of its country and find ways to effectively balance those interests. The reality that China is limiting elections in Hong Kong, because China does not want candidates that may upset wealthy businesses and individuals, runs thoroughly counter to the basic principles of communism. Undermining one of communism’s few redeeming qualities, i.e. equal wealth distribution prevents poverty from existing in the face of extreme wealth reveals Corporation China is truly an authoritarian regime in disguise where the interests of the government elites are the main concern. Where ideal capitalist organization only bother with social concerns when failing to do so threatens their economic interests, the Chinese government only bothers itself with social concerns to suppress civil unrest in order to protect the interests of the party elites. In 2006, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said democracy was “important for China to pursue” in order to “transform itself into a modernized country.” Having developed their ideology under privilege and the 1990’s embrace of capitalism, the current Chinese leadership is becoming more and more business-like in how they rule China to the point they treat it like a corporation without regard for human interests. The greatest problem with this type of thinking is that governments have more than economic interests that must be addressed. It is important to also recognize governments are required to police corporations, because they have the power to pursue their economic interests at the expense of the broader interests of communities. When democracy is seen as a threat to the interests of government elites, the world can expect China to suppress democracy and the rights of their people while threatening the freedoms of Peoples around the world. That said, the more the Chinese government suppresses the interests of the democratized People in Hong Kong, the more these individuals are going to cry foul on the Chinese government so loud those who have never thought to question the communist elites are going to hear it. In short, the more capitalistic the Chinese government comes to acts, couple with its authoritarian impulse to suppress dissent, the less it concerns itself with the interests of its citizens. Moreover, capitalism may work well for an authoritarian regime, but a government cannot embrace capitalism and communism without democracy while authoritarian governments are bound to fail. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|