Πέμπτη, 10 Ιουνίου 2010

20100608 With Friends Like the United States

With Friends Like the United States . . .

 

President Obama has emboldened America's adversaries and unnerved its allies.

JUNE 8, 2010     [  WSJ  Europe ]

By ELIOT COHEN [Mr. Cohen teaches strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University and served as counselor of the Department of State under Condoleezza Rice].

What do the following have in common: the piling on Israel after the botched interception of the Hamas relief flotilla, the Chinese military telling the U.S. secretary of defense that he was not welcome in Beijing, and the declaration by Nick Clegg—now deputy prime minister of Great Britain—that his country's special relationship with America is over?

Answer: The Obama administration has managed to convince most countries around the world that we are worth little as friends and even less as enemies.

Last week, Israel walked into a trap set by a flotilla of Hamas sympathizers and what Lenin used to call useful idiots. Israeli commandos who were being attacked by burly men trying to throw them overboard or beat them senseless killed a bunch of people whom they would rather not have killed. American forces do the same thing on many occasions when, for example, we use missile-firing drones to support U.S. policies. According to some accounts the recent assassination of al Qaeda No. 3 Sheikh Said al-Masri also killed his wife, three daughters and a granddaughter.

The Israelis have a right to blockade Gaza, from which they withdrew only to soak up several thousand rockets in return, and they did what they could to get the ships to send supplies into Gaza through their ports. Until Vice President Joe Biden plucked up the courage to acknowledge on "Charlie Rose" that the Israelis are at war with Hamas and have the right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, the Israelis could have been forgiven for thinking that we would hang them out to dry. When the U.S. accepted last week, albeit with some tut-tutting, the recent conclusion of the 189-nation nuclear nonproliferation review conference that singles out Israel but does not mention Iran, it was obvious that something is seriously amiss.

The folly here is to think that leaving the Israelis open to these kinds of diplomatic attacks will buy good will in a Middle East that gets its opinions from Al Jazeera and a venomous media that routinely prints outrageous lies and hate literature that echoes Nazi Germany. That part of the world, as Osama bin Laden once correctly observed, prefers a strong horse to a weak horse.

The still greater folly is to think that distancing ourselves from the Israelis will buy us leverage with them. When did the Israelis withdraw from Gaza? When they had a president in the White House upon whom they knew they could count. If, as is the case now, Israel is alone and desperate, is it more or less likely to conclude it has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Obama administration has been peculiarly inept at handling allies, to the point that it has jeopardized some of our most important relationships. That a senior British politician would dismiss the pillar of British foreign policy since 1940 is astounding. But Nick Clegg said during the recent British election that the special relationship is over and that the American government understands this even if the British government does not. When asked about relations with the U.S. under President Barack Obama, 17% of Britons in a recent poll thought they had improved; 25% thought they had deteriorated.

The administration refuses out of timidity to advance a free trade agreement with any ally, including Colombia, a success story if only we would claim it. And its quixotic quest for total nuclear disarmament unnerves, among others, our French allies, who want to keep a robust deterrent. These are part of a broader rejection of a world in which the U.S. has real allies that need cultivating and reinforcing.

No less dismaying is Mr. Obama's attitude to U.S. rivals. Its most recent National Security Strategy, issued a month ago, barely acknowledges that such a category exists. The need for the U.S. to balance China in Asia is evident to any moderately alert clerk in the foreign ministry of most Asian countries. Yet such notions are missing from a document that talks a great deal about education policy, economic development and the limits on American power, but very little about geopolitics.

China's snub to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates—its rejection last week of an American request for a visit as he travels to a conference in Singapore—is part of a larger picture. The studied unwillingness of the Chinese even to acknowledge that the North Koreans launched an unprovoked attack on a South Korean naval vessel tells us that they do not think they have to take American anger about anything seriously.

Or take the case of Turkey. The outrageous statements of the Turkish government denouncing Israel for "inhumane state terrorism" toward the Gaza flotilla reflect a broader pattern, going back a number of years, of Turkey's evolution into a country very different from that of 20 or 30 years ago. A combination of Islamist rule, resentment at exclusion from Europe, and a neo-Ottomanist ideology that envisions Turkey as a great power in the Middle East have made Turkey a state that is often plainly hostile not only to Israel but to American aims and interests. The conclusion is sobering—but first one has to recognize the facts for what they are.

There is no penalty for a foreign government crossing this U.S. president—unless you are the hapless prime minister of Israel visiting the White House, in which case, to paraphrase the deli bully in "Seinfeld," "No dinner for you!" The most that a leader like President Lula da Silva of Brazil can expect from doing his best to derail the painfully slow effort to contain Iran is pursed lips.

As for North Korea and Iran, the National Security Strategy threatens them with . . . isolation. North Korea is not already isolated? And Iran is isolated when it has the governments of Turkey and Brazil cozying up to it? What precisely have we gained from reaching out to the Syrian government, whose leaders pocketed our restoration of ambassadorial relations, and in return lessened their ties to Hezbollah and Iran not a wit?

The administration cannot even bring itself to characterize accurately the enemies that it must admit we have. The National Security Strategy declares that we are at war with "Al Qaeda and its affiliates." Islamist extremists? Jihadis? Perish the thought.

Senior officials have repeatedly insisted that they know that radical Islamism runs counter to the authoritative teachings of an altogether peace-loving religion—when the truth is that all religions, including Islam, have within them entirely authentic, deeply rooted, and often sophisticated fanatical streams. This refusal to acknowledge the creed of our enemies is further evidence of a lack of strategic seriousness.

The administration is making a dangerous world even more so. It has announced that it will head for the exits in Afghanistan, that it will not stand by our closest ally, as the Brits discovered when we fastidiously refused to take their side on the latest round of the Falklands dispute. The Israelis should not be the only ones who are worried.



20100610 Turkey's Clash of Civilizations

Turkey's Clash of Civilizations

Under the Islamist Erdogan government, the country can no longer be considered a Western ally ]

 

By SONER CAGAPTAY

Ever since the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) assumed power in 2002, Turkish foreign policy has made a 180-degree turn. The country's once-strong ties with the United States and Israel have been weakened, and entry talks with the European Union have stalled while Ankara has come to the defense of the Iranian nuclear program and Hamas. The reason for this shift is simple: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government believe that Samuel Huntington was right, that there is a clash of civilizations. Only they are on the side of the Islamists, not the West.

For the AKP, "Turkey's traditionally strong ties with the West represent a process of alienation." This is a quote from "Strategic Depth," the opus written by Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkey's foreign minister. Unfortunately, "Strategic Depth" has not been translated into English, though Westerner would do well to read it to get a better understanding of Ankara's thinking. The work's executive summary answers all questions about the AKP's foreign policy: "Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, Muslims have gotten the short end of the stick, and the AKP is here to correct all that."

The AKP won't correct all wrongs against Muslims, though. This is because Islamism—a political ideology that sees Muslims in perpetual conflict with the West and with "non-believers"--and not Islam, guides the AKP's foreign policy. Ankara will therefore favor other Islamists over Muslims that don't share their Manichean worldview. Thus, the party will forgive and even defend the ills of Islamist regimes against fellow-Muslims, such as the Sudanese genocide of Darfuris or Tehran's suppression of its own population. Likewise, it will support Islamist Hamas and its violent goals, but not the secular Palestinian Authority or the peaceful Palestinian cause.

This selective solidarity also applies to ills committed against Muslims by non-Muslims, as long as those non-Muslims are anti-American or anti-European. That's because political Islam has made the strategic decision that the enemy of its enemy is its friend . Hence, Russia will get a pass regardless of how many Chechens it kills.

Ankara, though, will always singularly target Israel, because the AKP adheres to the Islamist view that the Jewish state as such—irrespective of its specific borders or policies—will always be a sore in the "Muslim world."

There is little the West can do to change the AKP's foreign policy outlook. In fact, some policymakers and pundits in Washington and European capitals have, perhaps unwittingly, helped empower this development in the first place. Believing that the supposedly reformed Islamist AKP could be a bridge-builder between Western and Muslim countries, they promoted the new Turkish government as a special mediator in the region while shielding it from those critics who worried early on about the AKP's worldview.

Allowing such an Islamist catalyst into the Middle East's conflicts produced devastating results. Because the AKP sees a clash of civilizations everywhere it looks, it cannot be an impartial mediator. Hence, when the AKP was allowed to interject itself between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, or the United States and Iran, it quickly became a tribune for the Islamist side, rising in their defense. After eight years of increasingly authoritarian and dominant AKP rule at home, many Turks now also see the world through the Islamists' eyes of a civilizational clash.

Even though the AKP is the main political force in the country, the party's popularity has been sliding after the opposition Republican Peoples' Party elected a new charismatic leader. One survey even showed the opposition party pulling ahead of the AKP for the first time since 2002. Recent polls, however, show that the Gaza debacle that resulted in the tragic death of Turkish citizens has boosted the AKP's popularity.

The government will no doubt continue to use populist, anti-Western foreign policy to boost its popularity in the run up to next year's elections.

The West needs to face the reality that, despite the country's NATO membership, Turkey can no longer be considered a Western ally under the AKP. In order to contain the AKP's Islamists influence not just in Turkey but also in the region, the West must deny the Erdogan government the influence and prestige that comes with being promoted as a regional mediator. It's time for Western leaders to distance themselves somewhat from Ankara.

Mr. Cagaptay, a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of "Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk?" (Routldge, 2006).

WSJ Europe / Tuesday,  June 8, 2010.

 

 

 



Βασίλης Βιλιάρδος

Βασίλης Βιλιάρδος

Δευτέρα, 7 Ιουνίου 2010

ΔΙΑΚΟΠΗ-ΑΚΥΡΩΣΗ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΜΟΥ

Μέχρι αποκαταστάσεως της ανωμαλίας και της τυχόν δημιουργίας νέου BLOG οι αναρτήσεις μου θα γίνονται στο FACEBOOK [www.facebook.com/sotsot.sot]
 


ΕΔΩ ΚΑΙ ΜΙΣΗ ΩΡΑ ΜΟΥ ΑΠΡΟΕΙΔΟΠΟΙΗΤΑ ΑΚΥΡΩΘΗΚΑΝ-ΔΙΑΚΟΠΗΚΑΝ ΤΑ BLOGS ΜΟΥ "ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΑ & ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΑ", "ARXEIO-SOTSOT" ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΑΡΙΑΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ email ΜΟΥ sotsot36@gmail.com, ΑΠΟ ΤΗ GOOGLE. 
ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩ ΌΛΑ ΤΑ ΜΗΝΥΜΑΤΑ ΣΑΣ ΝΑ ΣΤΕΛΝΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΤΗ ΔΙΕΥΘΥΝΣΗ sotsot36@otenet.gr
ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ


--
ΑΣ ΓΙΝΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΟΙ ΤΟ 2010.

Κάθε μέρα, κάθε ώρα υπάρχει κάτι νέο στο www.facebook.com/sotsot.sot, στα ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΑ & ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΑ [http://sotsot36.blogspot.com] + στο ΑΡΧΕΙΟ SOTSOT36 [http://arxeio-sotsot36.blogspot.com] + οπωσδήποτε το "η ζωή μέσα απ'τα μάτια του αρχιτέκτονα" [//bloggerkm2009.blogspot.com]



--
ΑΣ ΓΙΝΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΟΙ ΤΟ 2010.

Κάθε μέρα, κάθε ώρα υπάρχει κάτι νέο στο www.facebook.com/sotsot.sot, στα ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΑ & ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΑ [http://sotsot36.blogspot.com] + στο ΑΡΧΕΙΟ SOTSOT36 [http://arxeio-sotsot36.blogspot.com] + οπωσδήποτε το "η ζωή μέσα απ'τα μάτια του αρχιτέκτονα" [//bloggerkm2009.blogspot.com]

ΔΙΑΚΟΠΗ-ΑΚΥΡΩΣΗ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΜΟΥ

ΕΔΩ ΚΑΙ ΜΙΣΗ ΩΡΑ ΜΟΥ ΑΠΡΟΕΙΔΟΠΟΙΗΤΑ ΑΚΥΡΩΘΗΚΑΝ-ΔΙΑΚΟΠΗΚΑΝ ΤΑ BLOGS ΜΟΥ "ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΑ & ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΑ", "ARXEIO-SOTSOT" ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΑΡΙΑΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ email ΜΟΥ sotsot36@gmail.com, ΑΠΟ ΤΗ GOOGLE. 
ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩ ΌΛΑ ΤΑ ΜΗΝΥΜΑΤΑ ΣΑΣ ΝΑ ΣΤΕΛΝΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΤΗ ΔΙΕΥΘΥΝΣΗ sotsot36@otenet.gr
ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ


--
ΑΣ ΓΙΝΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΟΙ ΤΟ 2010.

Κάθε μέρα, κάθε ώρα υπάρχει κάτι νέο στο www.facebook.com/sotsot.sot, στα ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΑ & ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΑ [http://sotsot36.blogspot.com] + στο ΑΡΧΕΙΟ SOTSOT36 [http://arxeio-sotsot36.blogspot.com] + οπωσδήποτε το "η ζωή μέσα απ'τα μάτια του αρχιτέκτονα" [//bloggerkm2009.blogspot.com]