By Conrad Black
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The process, poorly disguised and feebly denied by the
administration, of the withdrawal of the United States from the world’s main
overseas theaters continues. And in general, in the regions where American
withdrawal has had the greatest strategic impact, the withdrawal is being
managed competently by the regional powers the United States previously, and
for many decades, considered it in its national interest to reinforce. In the
Far East, China, still in a mighty triumph of developmental economics, though
it is tapering off, has essentially adopted the foreign policy of the
traditional emerging power, the slightly adolescent bravura and braggadocio of
Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, and even, though without his criminally
negligent insouciance, of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Absurdly chauvinistic claims are
being made about insignificant places like the Spratly Islands, and
international seas and sea passages are being declared Chinese coastal waters,
almost with the comical bellicosity, though not the outright buffoonery, of
Mussolini claiming in the 1930s that the Mediterranean was “an Italian lake.”
The U.S. Seventh Fleet still sails from Japan, but the
Indians and Japanese especially are raising their naval capabilities, and there
is no disposition to be more or less than respectful of China’s contiguity.
Despite Japan’s aging population, and the failure of successive economic
programs to jolt the country out of the stasis that followed the abrupt
collapse of Japan’s great economic challenge to the United States in the mid
Nineties, it is a great economic power and is rearming. India is accelerating
along the development track out of an over-controlled, stultified,
dysfunctional economy under a government with a clear mandate to generate swift
economic growth equitably distributed. The South Koreans, Vietnamese,
Filipinos, Indonesians, Thais — from all of whom China, in the powerful phases
of previous dynasties, expected deference if not tribute — as well, of course,
as the Australians and New Zealanders, are steadily cohering to contest China’s
self-assertions. In the long-hermit state of Myanmar (Burma), as in Taiwan
(Nationalist China, as the Vatican still redoubtably recognizes it to be
because of Beijing’s oppression of Christianity), there is studious autonomy
from the People’s Republic, one of the few policies on which the Burmese
reformers and the heavy-handed military despotism agree.
For all its success at departing the Third World, China
has been irresponsibly indulgent of rogue states, including Iran and North
Korea, and appears to be somewhat outmaneuvered by the demented nepotocracy in
North Korea, which has become a quasi-nuclear power under Beijing’s nose —
apparently because, if China really turned the screws on North Korea, which is
almost entirely dependent on the People’s Republic and could be brought to heel
easily (sparing the world all the fruitless negotiations with the Kim regime of
the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations), the fragile and freakish
leftover from World War II would crumple and collapse at the feet of South
Korea, almost instantly transforming a united Korea into one of the world’s
powers.
China has itself to blame for this conundrum, and it must
minister to its steadily more complicated relations with its neighbors while
its still largely command economy is forced to pitch to a domestic consumer
market that is far from docile. The domestic savings rate is nearly 50 percent
because the regime has provided only a minimal social-security safety net, and
China faces the task of luring hundreds of millions of people to be consumers,
to ensure continued economic growth, with political institutions that are
mysterious, largely corrupt, completely unanswerable to the public, and
responsive only to invisible pressures within the seething power structure of
the governing Communist party (of a largely capitalist country). The Obama
“pivot to Asia” was really just an excuse to explain withdrawal from Europe and
the Middle East westward; those areas were not supposed to notice that the
forces withdrawn went home and that the only expeditionary forces that made the
full pivot were a few companies of Marines sent to enjoy the casino and the zoo
at Darwin, Australia, which has not been under threat since a Japanese air raid
in 1942, shortly after General Douglas MacArthur disembarked, announcing his
return (to the Philippines).
Europe is not threatened by Russia, and the British and
French possess enough nuclear force to prevent nuclear blackmail on their own.
But with the weak leadership in London and Paris complementing the abdication
in Washington, and German chancellor Angela Merkel hobbled by a schizoid
coalition partner (the SPD, torn and waffling between Alliance and pacifist
factions), there is some danger of further exposure of the erosion of the
political will of the West. Germany is the greatest power in Europe and has
been since Bismarck united it in 1871, but has not behaved like both a great
and a responsible power since Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck in 1890. (Wilhelm’s
and Hitler’s Germany was a great but irresponsible power, and Stresemann’s
Weimar and the Federal Republic from Adenauer to Merkel have been responsible
but diminutive, compared with the real strength of Germany.)
In the aftermath of the Soviet Union, there are three
contending concepts for the future of its territories. First, there is Putin’s
attempted reabsorption of ethnic-Russian irredentists in the former Soviet
republics, as in Crimea, Donetsk, and the contested Georgian territories.
Second, there is the Finlandization of the former European Soviet republics —
Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia — as a neutral zone subject to Russian influence but not domination, as
in inter-war and post-war Finland. And the third option is a partition of those
areas between people who prefer to be Russian and the rest who prefer to be in
the West, preferably in the European Union and NATO, if that alliance retains
any meaning (a question that has arisen from the negligence of the last two
U.S. administrations). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any person in
authority in the so-called chancelleries of the West is thinking of this
problem in these terms. They’re just muddling along. The best course would be
to give Putin a quarter of a loaf and let those ethnic Russians in the formerly
affiliated states who are local majorities, and wish to remain Russian
citizens, do so, and to invite all the rest into the West, as the EU stabilizes
itself and Obama’s successor breathes new life into NATO before the most
successful alliance in history becomes a husk.
The enfeeblement of the West must be considered aberrant;
these societies cannot have simply atrophied in the years since Reagan, Thatcher,
Kohl, and Mitterrand, even less since Clinton, Blair, and Chirac, whose
governments could at least, and did generally, act sensibly. The real objective
must be to complete the demolition of czarist and Stalinist Russian imperialism
while recognizing the integrity and distinction of the Russian nationality in a
way that liberates those who seek liberation without humiliating Russia. And
the big prize is to extend the Western world, whose eastern border was only 100
miles beyond the Rhine when Germany was divided, to the borders of Russia, the
better to assist, absolutely peacefully and by example, persuasion, and the
ravages of prosperity, the Western emulators in Russia to prevail over the
nativists, and to bring Russia, Eurasia, into the West on good terms and as a
distinguished partner. This is the real prize, but it is totally obscured by
the unfathomable mediocrity of the current cast of characters, and the danger
is that Putin will exploit the feeble West and start stirring up Russians in
the little Baltic states. No NATO member except Poland is going to consider
such a thing, in the NATO Treaty terms, as “an attack upon one is an attack
upon all” call to arms. If we get through to the next U.S.
presidential-inauguration day without such a test, it will only be because of
the munificence of the Saudis in holding oil prices down so Putin can’t even
afford a show of strength against the Lithuanians.
The Middle East has witnessed the most complicated
withdrawal of all. Obama’s response to the Israeli elections, in which he
meddled shamelessly and unsuccessfully, was an outrage: spontaneous complaints
from his press secretary that Netanyahu was dividing his own Jewish and Arab
citizens. This is a bit rich from the spokesman for a president who has intervened
prejudicially and divisively in almost every highly publicized racial incident
in the U.S. in his time in office, accused the Republicans of waging “a war on
women,” and fiscally assaulted the Roman Catholic Church. And it is cheeky to
address such comments to democratic Israel, where dissident Arabs are the third
party in the parliament. Benjamin Netanyahu has a mandate to attack Iran’s
nuclear capability if he thinks it necessary to Israeli national security and
would be supported by the Saudis, and tacitly by the Egyptians and the Turks.
It would be better for the United States and the other five countries in the
negotiations to abandon their inept meddling and let Israel get on with it, or
use that prospect to extract a better agreement from Iran, and for the Saudis
and Gulf states to finance the admirable Egyptian president Abdel Fattah
el-Sisi in modernizing the Egyptian economy if the U.S. continues to sulk over
the fate of the Muslim Brotherhood (of all unworthy subjects of American
sympathy). The Palestinians can have their state, with a narrower West Bank and
a deeper Gaza, if they recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and
cease to be a launch-pad for terrorist and rocket attacks on Israel. The
ancient Persians, Egyptians, Turks, Jews, and Saudis will work it out in their
own way and time, as long as nuclear weapons aren’t in the equation, with
special status for Jordan, Lebanon, and the Kurds.
American withdrawal isn’t a bad idea, as long as it isn’t
necessarily permanent. What has been this administration’s single most
irritating characteristic has been retreating from the world while pretending
it isn’t, and claiming a completely undiminished right to advise and coerce
those countries to whom it has almost ceased to be relevant. Obama has neither
the will to stay nor the grace to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment