Power vacuum in West
I respect V. S. Naipaul a great deal, and I listen to his views. I notice that he is not invested in the notion that Western civilization is in decline. ''A civilization which has taken over the world cannot be said to be dying," he says. Well, I'm not so sure. Europe especially is in the middle of a deep cultural, economic and demographic crisis which is very real, and I see few signs of this situation improving. The USA is in a better position, but even she is affected by this. I do not discount the possibility that we could be witnessing a global shift of power, where Europe fades off the scene and East Asia takes over her spot:Power vacuum in West
In today’s new world order, champagne and canapés with the Chinese finance minister is not something anybody in the West can afford to miss. So Gordon Brown, Britain’s Chancellor, and a posse of other finance ministers have flown to Beijing this weekend to attend a gathering of the Group of 20 richest nations. Being in charge of the public finances of a major European economy does not carry much clout in Beijing these days, or anywhere else in Asia, where weak growth and waning geopolitical influence is not something that is admired. The Chinese are right not to be impressed. The West’s largest powers have become strangely rudderless, incapable of reacting rationally to the great challenges facing the world. At home, they are failing to reform their struggling economies and crumbling welfare states; abroad, their brief awareness of the need for radical action after 9/11 has given way to complacency, boredom and – in Europe – a belief among the chattering classes that rooting out so-called Islamo-phobia among the majority is more important than a robust response to the Islamo-fascist threat from without and within, an increasingly fashionable attitude that culminates in the view that the Islamo-fascists actually have a point and that the West should atone for its sins.
The failure of the Bush presidency has confirmed America’s enemies of the its essential decadence: even under a supposedly hardline president, the world’s only superpower has been found wanting when faced with a real war on terror, lacking the moral strength to stay the course, financial muscle to pay the bills, the attention span to remain focused on the task and the willingness to take military casualties in pursuit of agreed national goals. The US last displayed such weakness and lack of leadership in the post-Vietnam years and paid a terrible price, as the Soviets spread their influence across Africa and almost succeeded in undermining support for Nato in Europe. The nadir was the Iranian hostage crisis, which rightly destroyed the Carter Presidency a year later. As Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used to say, weakness is more provocative than strength.
The blunt realpolitik of 2005, a mere four years after the epoch-changing event of 9/11, is that there are now almost no conceivable circumstances under which the United States or Great Britain would launch major military action against any rogue state; they show no sign of knowing how properly to finish the job in Iraq, so why would they even dream of opening a second front? Iran and North Korea know that all too well, which is why they think they can behave with impunity, thumbing their noses at America and the West as they do so. The EU could not muster the military force to fight its way out of a wet paper bag, which leaves it entirely dependent on so-called “soft power”, that is the velvet glove (negotiation and diplomacy) without the iron fist, just about the worst negotiating position to be in.
While the West is plagued by lack of direction and indecision, the Asian powers – above all China – are going from strength to strength. We are on the brink of an historical watershed, the end of one era and the start of another. The process is being accelerated not just by the rise of Asia but by a US and EU which have lost their ways. Today’s unipolar world, in which the world’s only hyper-power lives beyond its means, with massive current account and budget deficits funded by Chinese and Japanese central banks, and no longer has the guts, patience, skill and commitment to root out global terrorism and failed states, is an unstable, transitional state of affairs. In ways that are uncertain and hard to divine, the balance of power is clearly switching from the Atlantic to East Asia. It will be a shift in power ripe for exploitation by those with the interests of neither the West nor East Asia at heart. No wonder al Qaeda is licking its lips.
posted by Unknown @ 2:52 PM
9 Comments:
The failure of the Bush presidency has confirmed America’s enemies of the its essential decadence: even under a supposedly hardline president, the world’s only superpower has been found wanting when faced with a real war on terror, lacking the moral strength to stay the course, financial muscle to pay the bills, the attention span to remain focused on the task and the willingness to take military casualties in pursuit of agreed national goals.
It would be hard to express the truth more precisely in one sentence.
The Western world has chosen assisted suicide. For a while I thought my country, the United States, would rise up on its own to confront the worldwide jihad — not by going to war against it everywhere, but by creating a believable threat of taking out regimes that support Islamofascism, whenever and wherever needed.
The poorly planned occupation of Iraq, which has given back to Al Qaeda and its allies what confidence Saddam's defeat may have taken away, has made any vows of further action ring hollow.
It is distasteful and wrenching to say this, but I fear that the only hope of creating a national consensus on winning the war is if AQ or some other Islamic terrorist organization makes a colossal blunder such as perpetrating an even worse attack on U.S. turf than 9/11.
In my really sour moments, I think that a people who can't be stirred to respond to a morally and politically deadly threat don't deserve saving. But there is no such thing as historical inevitability (ask any Marxist, if you can find one). Maybe we'll come out of this on better terms than we've earned.
Irene--Point well taken. It's even more disgusting when the rocks are thrown from inside your own country. The Europeans have nothing on the left-wing liberals in the US when it comes to bashing America. The anti-American vitriol isn't even disguised anymore, this article being a good case in point.
"This is the real reason why America is effectively losing the war to islam and losing its allies, who seeing the hyperpower's lack of determination and inability (cowardice?) to even name the enemy, are making their separate peace with the enemy. Who can blame them."
You have VERY selective recall of history. If there is cowardice to be found, it isn't among Americans--except the left-wing liberals which include most of the media in our country. I did not support the timing or method of the war in Iraq, and especially the idiot Rumsfeld who should have been replaced at the outset. His ineptness in planning is the cause for needless thousands of lives lost. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Saudis--it makes me wretch every time I see Bush kissing up to these murderers. However, I think Britian and the rest of Europe has made many more "friends" among the radical Islamists over the years than has America. The mayor of London is a known apologist for radical Islam. Very interesting that you should quote Churchill.
PD111: Thanks for your comments. And thanks for the recognition that we're all on the same side.
I suspect that you were faster off the mark than I was: I'm still struggling to reconcile my initial enthusiasm for GWB's leadership in this crisis with his now repeatedly demonstrated failure to comprehend the situation and what history is asking of us.
I no longer look to him for any right moves. The feeling, I guess, is kind of like what you feel when disappointed by someone you're in love with who proves unworthy of it.
I'm still stuck for an answer, though: what catalyst could possibly change this defeat-by-degrees that we're currently consigned to? And a mega-9/11 is the only thing that I can come up with. Needless to say, I hope, I don't really want that. The irony of the situation is that this country has everything it takes to destroy the cult of Jihad for generations to come -- maybe long enough for Islam to come to its senses.
All that's lacking is the will in a population whose majority, it appears, is fixated on consumerism, trivia and a desire to offend no one.
PD111,
I am finding it hard to understand how Europe can always point the finger at America's inadequacies--and we DO have many, while completely ignoring their own. The "war on terror" should be a global one, not limited to the US. I too, have been frustrated by many of President Bushs' "blind spots". The one that is most aggravating is our relationship with the country of Saudi Arabia. The majority of Americans are extremely frustrated about this, and at his lack of concern about the security of our borders. The huge influx of illegal aliens to this country--including those from countries that want to overthrow this government is inexcusable. I even contemplated moving to Sweden or Norway, (until I read some Scandinavian blogs), as a personal solution to this insanity. I still think about moving to Australia, but in reality I don't think there is anywhere to escape to. I think the solution is to find and elect leaders who believe as we do and act on that belief.
AND:
"But even worse humiliation was to follow in subsequent days, as George Bush scuttled around the US for security reasons. I dont think people quite realise the significance of these events. It was NOT GWB that was scuttling around the US but the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE US. It was the symbol of STATE that was on the run. This has never happened in the history of the US; not on Dec 7 1941 or even the Cuban missile crisis. A humiliation on the OFFICE of the President of the US, is what was inflicted on those days."
I've never heard of this so am not sure what you are referring to here, please clarify.
pd111,
The reason Bush was being shuttled around on 9/11 was because of reports of an imminent attack on Air Force One, which later proved to be false. He flew to Barksdale AFB in Lousiana, and then went to Offutt AFB in Nebraska because it had a bunker where he could conduct the business of the nation until the threats against AF1 were taken care of. Here's a link to an article that explains some of what happened:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/
60II/main521718.shtml
pd111,
I don't agree with your assessment-- dumping all the blame in the lap of George Bush. If you know anything about American politics you must have noticed it is mainly liberals who love to push dhimmitude on the west with their insane version of political correctness. Eurpope has a voice in the war on terror. What has the EU done? I agree with you about the meddling of the US and Britain as far as Turkey goes----but ultimately it was the Europeans who made the decision to admit Turkey. The US did declare war on Afghanistan to route out the Taliban. I am not as fatalistic as you seem to be about the future. Things could've been worse than they are now. How would you like a President Kerry in the white house instead of Bush? Now, THAT gives me nightmares.
pd111,
For some reason you seem fixated on what happened to Bush on 9/11. If there were a real threat--what should he have done? Having a President targeted and killed would NOT have helped on that day. It would have made things MUCH worse and given untold joy to the Islamists. What he did was beyond his control, (certain protocols MUST be followed) and was done for the security of this nation. It was the prudent thing to do under the circumstances.
There is a huge difference between Bush and Kerry, and thank God the world didn't have to suffer the consequences of a Kerry administration. I am not thrilled with Bush, especially concerning the war in Iraq. He chose the most incompetent person (Rumsfeld) to lead this war and WAS warned, both by military leaders and members of Congress about inadequate troop strength at the outset. In addition, there was virtually no planning after the fall of Saddam. To continue to see this idiot running the show is the most aggravating thing you can imagine. That said, if you think the world situation is bad now, you have NO idea what it would be right now had Kerry been elected.
One last note--I would respectfully suggest you don't believe everything you hear from the mainstream liberal media since their viewpoint is terribly one-sided.
Post a Comment
<< Home