US Unilateralism & extra-territorial law: A sign of weakness?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb

But self-interests of our countries are different too, sometimes extremly different.

What issues come to mind when you say this?

[Serb]

Foreign policy.
Yugoslavia, "AXIS of evil" etc.
When first American bomb will be droped to Iraq, our relationships become much chiller.

[Roland]

"In a sense this was an attempt to turn American foreign policy on it's head, away from self-interest and balance of power considerations and toward internationalist and humanitarian concerns."

US foreign policy is foremost a chaos, apart from some steady aspects. NATO was one, until the cold war ended. So I do not think US policy is driven by the national interest - more by special and party interests. As to what Clinton wanted... I'm at a loss. I can't imagine they wanted an "internationalist and humanitarian" policy when they went to the banana war for Chiquita, and the attempts to block a european defense policy were as vivid under Clinton as they are with Dubya.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
US foreign policy is foremost a chaos, apart from some steady aspects.

When Clinton took office the U.S. had just fought the Gulf War, 99% self-interest and 1% to uphold the rights of States to be free of absorbtion by other States by force.

A lot of this chaos is due to the shifting to and fro between isolationism / missionary democratism (Wilsonian) / realpolitik, mainly as administrations change, but also in response to criticism from other camps (ie Bush into Somalia).

Originally posted by Roland
NATO was one, until the cold war ended. So I do not think US policy is driven by the national interest - more by special and party interests. As to what Clinton wanted... I'm at a loss. I can't imagine they wanted an "internationalist and humanitarian" policy when they went to the banana war for Chiquita,

???

Originally posted by Roland
and the attempts to block a european defense policy were as vivid under Clinton as they are with Dubya.

The support for NATO expansion under both Bush sr. and Clinton had more to do with inertia and lack of imagination than having any real political or philosophical underpinning. Bush didn't really have time to formulate a policy which he had not anticipated, and Clinton never seemed to even think that a new policy might be in order after the collapse of the USSR. Thus he 'chased the wounded bear into it's cave' by supporting NATO expansion. I think opposing the Europan defense policy is mostly an extension of this. As for Bush jr., I'm not sure what to think about his feelings on this matter. Either it's more inertia, or an attempt to keep the Europeans weak and force them to rely on the U.S. militarily. Whatever it is, it's a stupid policy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb
Foreign policy.
Yugoslavia, "AXIS of evil" etc.
When first American bomb will be droped to Iraq, our relationships become much chiller.

Yugoslavia I can understand, but I doubt you will have any trouble with us about Yugoslavia in the future.

The Axis of Evil. Which states in the Axis of Evil are really critical to the foreign policy of Russia? Are these states still of value to Russia outside the context of a rivalry with the United States? Sure Iraq and Iran are paying customers for weapons, but wouldn't they buy weapons even if these states had more democratic governments? I can't imagine anyone shedding any tears for the Dear Leader and his cronies in Korea.

[Roland]

"???"

The trade dispute with the EU. Going all that distance for close to no US interest apart from that of a major campaign contributor. Does not really fit with sudden outbursts of idealism.

Another chaos factor is the domestic agenda. The only angle from which the axis of evil makes sense is that of NMD. And that is a rightwing pet and pork project.

"I think opposing the Europan defense policy is mostly an extension of this."

Well, at the moment the US admin is working miracles in creating one, although not completely on purpose, I assume....

[Sikander]

Ah the trade dispute with the EU. Forgive me, it got close to zero coverage here in the U.S. Definitely a political payoff type issue, though the implications for carrying out a scorched earth policy could have been seen to have implications for other sectors as well.


"Well, at the moment the US admin is working miracles in creating one, although not completely on purpose, I assume.... "

I always secretly hope that these guys are smarter than they seem, and doing stuff indirectly. For example the Chinese embassy bombing. However experience has taught me that this is rarely the case. Fortunately a bonus gained through bungling is a bonus nevertheless.

[Roland]

"Forgive me, it got close to zero coverage here in the U.S."

Here it was mostly the target of much ridicule. Although on the business news it was a regular feature on both sides.

"I always secretly hope that these guys are smarter than they seem, and doing stuff indirectly."

I have given up on that one. I used to think that politicians can't possibly be as dumb as they behave, but everything shows they are...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander


Yugoslavia I can understand, but I doubt you will have any trouble with us about Yugoslavia in the future.

Any guaranty?

The Axis of Evil. Which states in the Axis of Evil are really critical to the foreign policy of Russia?

All of them. Well, they may be not critical, but important. Russia as the successor of SU has much better relations with those countries then USA. Of course I can’t say that we are allies (like it was with Yugoslavia), but I also can’t say that our relations are hostile. But this is not what I want to say. I want to say that if USA will start to use “War over terrorism” as cover for achieving it’s self-interests, that will be unacceptable for us. USA was hostile to N. Korea, Iran and Iraq long ago before Sept. 11. And now your president wants to convince whole world that those countries support terrorism. What is it a joke? We want to see the evidences that those countries support terrorism. We support your actions in Afghanistan because we have proofs that the Taliban is supporting terrorism, furthermore our president tried to convince US government to make common measures against the Taliban since times when president Clinton was in charge. We have proofs, we were absolutely sure that Taliban is the major sponsor for Chechen terrorists. But we do not have any proof that for example N. Korea’s government is connected to Al-Qeda or any other terrorist’s organization. If any actions against those countries will be made without UN permission, then it will means that tomorrow any country of the world may be bombed if USA find it’s government hostile. This thing is unacceptable for us, and not for us only.

Sure Iraq and Iran are paying customers for weapons

Enlighten me, did embargo against Iraq already removed? In other cases we cooperate with both of them, and we have economic interests in those countries. And, if I’m not mistaken the embargo for weapons trade against Iran do not exist, and we cooperate with Iran in military field, but I’m not sure about this.

but wouldn't they buy weapons even if these states had more democratic governments?

Of course they will buy, the question is who will be a seller then.
We have programs of cooperation in military field with Iraq, but embargo prevent it. But if USA will install its own pocket government in Iraq and remove the embargo, I wonder this government will cooperate with Russia, more likely it will be cooperate with USA.

I can't imagine anyone shedding any tears for the Dear Leader and his cronies in Korea.

Well, may be, except Koreans. As for me, they are ready to fight for the death for their Dear Leader. Don’t you think that there is a possibility that N. Korea might become a second Vietnam for USA in case of intervention? (Actually I don’t think that USA may choose this way, but only theoretically?)
Btw, did you hear that speechwriter who created this “Axis of evil” line, was fired from White House staff?

[el freako]

Re: Totally off topic

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is the 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' that good of a book? What is it's thesis? If it really is that informative, I'll probably have to pick it up.

The main premise is that countries first gain economic power and then aquire millitary power to defend their interests.

However their economic power usually peaks quite a bit before their millitary power - and as such their increased reliance on millitary power only serves to drag their economies down further.

The book also points out that in every major coalition war between the great powers since 1500 victory has always gone to the side with the most economic resources to hand.

[David Floyd]

The book also points out that in every major coalition war between the great powers since 1500 victory has always gone to the side with the most economic resources to hand.

Yeah, obviously in a years-long war of attrition, the richer side is gonna win. That's somewhere between a "no-**** statement" and a truism

Of course, that premise would probably be less true today, in a short, high-tech war. But we've already had that discussion as I recall

[Bereta_Eder]

A US unilateralism is more than evident. Wether this means a commencement of the diminshement of US power is not clear at all. It is not a simple case of "if it barks more it feels more insecure".

Unilateralism may well be a sign of actual strengthening of power. One can not decide which is the case by just noticing the return of unlilateralist policies.

However there are some stantards that remain constant.

The US must keep satisfying the europeans in order to have their support.

A lack of support from Europe means that the maerican bases all over Europe will be banned, NATO will be dissolved, European terrotiry will be forbiden for american forces to cross through ect. In other words the supremacy of the US in the world will be greatly hindered. The protection of its interests too.

But let's look at the facts: is the EU ready to do something like this? And is the US policy so against european interests that it justifies such backlash from Europe?

For thepresent time the answer to both questions is No.

But it gets nearer and nearer to that point.

america has demonstrated that it can "feel" the limits of its power and comform and change policies if it deems that it is in her best interest to do so.

But for the time being it can keep roaming the world over because there is no opposing force (which would be a 100% unified Europe).

In short this recent tide of US unilateralism can be revoked in the glance of an eye. This is something Bush knows very well (I hope).
It will become apparent if the actions of the US are deemed openly hostile and there is a demand to change them.
Nothing of that sort is there although in many instances it is very close.

Stil Europe can do absolutely nothing in opposing US if it doesn't even have the ability to protect peace within its own borders. But we are working on that.

Us takes advantage of the lack of europe's unification we both know it. It is up to us to change that and create an even field of play between EU and US since our interests may be a bit opposite (and then again they might not be - my feelings is that if you regard Europe as a whole the US actions are not at all threatening (for Europe))

[Shi Huangdi]

"On the flip side though the US still refuses to ban landmine, still tests nuclear devices, and still refuses to ratify Koyto."

Kyoto falls under the realm of a domestic issue, and the other two have to do with our own military. Yes, we do unilaterally make our own domestic policy and our military policy.

"I am sure dissidents can point out many more cases where the US acted alone, or against world opinion."

You mean like how we still practiced democracy even after the Aristocratic restoration. Or how Wilson tried to make the Treaty of Versailles lenient? The USA has a long history of acting against world opinion. But it is rare the US acts alone.

"- Increasing reliance on actual military than on potential power."

In the modern world, due to difficulty in training and the importance of technology, military power becomes more important. For instance, several military experts on this forum suggested the draft would become useless.

"Another example will arive soon, when the first American bomb will be droped to Iraq."

The USA will not be able to take action in Iraq unless we have the support of a Mid-east coalition.

"The main premise is that countries first gain economic power and then aquire millitary power to defend their interests."

I disagree. States have many reasons for the acquistion of military power, of which economics are only one.

'The book also points out that in every major coalition war between the great powers since 1500 victory has always gone to the side with the most economic resources to hand."

Don't assume that because it has been that way in the past it will be that way today. And in any case what you said is wrong, in the arab coalitions against Israel, the Arabs had more economic potential, but Israel won due to superior military training and technology.

[Serb]

Don't assume that because it has been that way in the past it will be that way today. And in any case what you said is wrong, in the arab coalitions against Israel, the Arabs had more economic potential, but Israel won due to superior military training and technology.

I'm not sure that Palestine has more economic potential then Israel. Covert support from Arabs countries is a little different thing for me that large scale military aid.
And this war is not over yet, right?
When Hitler was a 100Km away from Moscow, many people thought that he almost win, but they were mistaken.
So, I don't think that this example proves that things changed in modern times.

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't mean Palestine v. Israel, I mean the times when the Arab states actually went to war with Israel.