The Bus
For some reason, in today's offering Tom Friedman decided to write a totally coherent argument and then just tack one of his signature baffling mixed metaphors on at the end, rather than weaving it through the whole story. Friedman's main point is charmingly correct -- a lot of the problems we're grappling with would suddenly become much easier to solve if we were getting whole-hearted cooperation from China and Russia rather than extremely grudging semi-cooperation. Unfortunately, Friedman doesn't provide much of a solution except for exhortation. He wants "China and Russia [to] get their act together and understand that [widespread nuclear proliferation] is a much bigger threat to their prosperity than a post-cold-war world in which U.S. power is pre-eminent" and for "Russia and China [to] get over their ambivalence about U.S. power." Clearly, though, this isn't going to happen merely from us asking them impolitely. After all, ambivalence about US power is a natural thing for Russia and China to feel.
We're very powerful. And our basic story about why other countries shouldn't worry that our massive power will imperil their interests is "trust us -- we're the good guys." But the things we do don't always seem good to other governments. And, indeed, "being good" is sometimes bad for other governments. If you were in charge of the Chinese Communist Party, you probably wouldn't find talk about the United States spreading freedom and democracy around the world especially reassuring.
The upshot is that we're bound to be more concerned about proliferation than the Russians or the Chinese are. For us, it's an unambiguous bad. For them, it has its upsides and its downsides. But we could really use their cooperation. The question becomes what, in practice, would it take for us to get that cooperation and then are we willing to offer it? Importantly, it means we're going to need to set priorities. How much do we care about Taiwan? How committed are we to keeping the door open to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. If giving up on those kind of things could genuinely secure Sino-Russian cooperation on Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda is that a good deal, or a bad one?
Comments
Thomas Friedman is a bright man (even if his centrism is cringingly middlebrow). But what does he know about Russia or China, and especially their internal politics.
Cooperation is possible with both countries, but most of it needs to be under the table, and Washington must allow a healthy dose of un-cooperative rhetoric in public. Russia's problem is a humiliated and underemployed ethnic Russian populace on the one hand, and a restive, angry but quite large Muslim minority. Moscow cannot afford to be seen as coddling this administration, or any administration to follow. Chaos in the south of a country with more nuclear weapons than almost any other country on earth is in no one's interest.
China's troubles are similiar but different. Per usual, the neoconservative elites misunderstand the so-called China threat. At this point it is less that China might become a regional or global hegemon, but that it may fracture internally. China has spent almost half her history as a divided kingdom, and class, ethnic, religious, and environmental tensions are a genuine threat to the country's unity and stability. Protests - often violent, and largely unreported - are taking place daily across the country (and have been for the last decade). And despite China's nationalist pretensions the nouveau riche east end is coming to have more in common with the East Asian prosperity belt (included China's historic foe Japan) than the poor, struggling interior. Like Russia, we do not want a nuclear-powered giant to descend into chaos.
Importantly, it means we're going to need to set priorities.
The US political system cannot set priorities.
If giving up on [low priority foreign policy items] could genuinely secure Sino-Russian cooperation on Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda is that a good deal, or a bad one?
That's a whole lotta thinkin' to do. No, far better is to operate like we have been: insist that everything is a priority, and all it takes to achieve them is to exert ourselves (or, rather, to delegate the exertion to underlings). It's the "pointy-headed boss" approach.
---"The upshot is that we're bound to be more concerned about proliferation than the Russians or the Chinese are. For us, it's an unambiguous bad. For them, it has its upsides and its downsides."
What is the upside of N Korea having nukes?
Can someone post the metaphor? That's what I look forward to when I read/hear Friedman.
Is there any real evidence that Tom Friedman is a bright man? At least is there any evidence of recent vintage? I've not seen any for years. His writings is, frankely, simple-minded and moronic in the extreme.
I'm with crack. Let those of us without timeselect subscriptions know what his stupid metaphor is.
Mind you, it couldn't be any stupider than saying "Russia and China need to get over their ambivalence about US power." Canada is "ambivalent" about US power. UK Tories are "ambivalent" about US power. Somehow I think that word doesn't quite catch what Russians and Chinese think about it.
When he finished the column he realized he was four words short. . .
His final paragraphs:
"If they do, this relatively benign post-cold-war world might continue. If they don’t, if they keep trying to be free riders on our bus, we’ll all stall — because America can’t keep this bus moving alone any longer, especially when the road gets this dangerous.
The bus stops here."
No other mention of the bus in the column
you were in charge of the Chinese Communist Party, you probably wouldn't find talk about the United States spreading freedom and democracy around the world especially reassuring. "
The interesting thing about that sentence is that it doesn't matter whether you use "freedom and democracy" seriously, or as a euphemism for imperialism, it is still true.
A friend of mine was in India and serendipitously had a conversation with an upper level Indian national security official. The topic of nuclear weapons came up and my friend alluded to thet fact had India had a real enemy that possessed nuclear weapons also (Pakistan) and that Indi aneeded to be more careful than most nations. The official responded that Pakistan had 400 million people and India 800 million (or more). An even exchange left Paksitan with zero and India with 400 million.
India, China and, to a lesser degree, Russia do not have the same pants pissing mindset that America has. Exhortations based on our perceptions seem to be laughable to them.
Thank you, dp. It's been a while since Friedman's been on a bus, obviously.
Why we care about Taiwan at all is beyond me. Of course it's bad for people to live under repressive governments, but I've never really gotten a clear answer on why we should care more about the 22 million people in Taiwan than about the other 1.3 billion people in China who live under that government now.
We could solve much of their ambivalence if we weren't so beligerant and self-righteous. For all they know, we'll be calling for regime change in their country before long (especially China). Despite what people in America think, the United States is not the world's boss.
@Christopher M
- We care about Taiwan because the Taiwanese people managed to lift themselves out of martial law, and take their place with the world's democracies.
- We don't care about China because its people are too craven to challenge their totalitarian masters, and thus deserve the pain and punishment they receive.
After witnessing what has happened in Iraq the only conclusion I can come to is that no nation can be given freedom. They must earn it with their own blood and suffering.
The problem that Tom Friedman refuses to acknowledge is that John Bolton is a loose cannonball at the UN whose motives are suspect to Russia and China. Bolton most importantly wants to push a resolution on N Korea through the Security Council with Chapter 7 enforcement provisions. This would be unacceptable to China because like the attempted resolution on Iraq in the fall of 2002, it would authorize the use of force on the Korean peninsula, the last thing that China wants to have happen in the current emergency.
If the US is so concerned about non-proliferation why did the CIA knowingly let the A Q Khan network peddle its nuclear wares and knowhow to most of the rogue states during the nineties? The A Q Khan network is by far the greatest nuclear proliferator in history far exceeding anything the N Koreans have attempted. And Bush allows Musharraf to get away with coddling A Q Khan in his huge villa under "house arrest".
"We could solve much of their ambivalence if we weren't so beligerant and self-righteous. For all they know, we'll be calling for regime change in their country before long (especially China). Despite what people in America think, the United States is not the world's boss."
Yeah the Russian and Chinese governments are wonderful. At least they aren't overtly hostile, like they were during the Cold War.
Russia's conduct in Chechnya makes the US look like boy scouts in Iraq. I don't really care much for the Dali Lama and Tibet, but China backs Sudan (Darfur), North Korea and Myanmar , delightful governments. And of course Russia back the last dictaorship of Europe, in Belarus.
"If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground ... " That was Mao Zedong in 1957.
Sounds a lot like that fella in India. India and Pakistan came very close to a "nuclear exchange" - i.e. holocaust - in the 90s, but of course the mainstream media didn't play it up very much, just a bunch of foreigners acting crazy. Nuclear proliferation is very scary, who says the North Koreans won't sell a bomb? They've sold all their other weapons. Maybe if we pretend it's not going on, nothing will happen. Just like Saddam Huessein wasn't a threat. He was "boxed" in. Yeah right.
If Russia and China were ideal democracies, they would still be (at best) ambivalent about American power. That's just human nature. Other people don't think I'm as wonderful as I do, and they don't love my children like I do. Grown ups accept this. Narcissists (and Americans) can't seem to.
"We don't care about China because its people are too craven to challenge their totalitarian masters, and thus deserve the pain and punishment they receive."
Shame on you for saying such a thing! Just when did you last put your life on the line taking a stand against injustice and oppression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg
As Ralph points out, Friedman is flat out wrong. The US government under Bush has simply not been concerned about proliferation. This is not only evidenced by failure to address Pakistan as Ralph notes, but also by Bush's failure to proceed with the non-proliferation programs in the former soviet states that were started under Clinton and intended to secure nuclear material. Remember how much of an issue Kerry made of this topic in the debates?
Friedmand is still a tool and an idiot.
Why is it that while the majority of Americans no longer believe the reason we invaded Iraq was to spread democracy, most still buy into the claim that if we ever go to war with China over Taiwan that's because we want to defend a democracy?
The U.S has been defending or pledged to defend Taiwan since 1949, long before Taiwan was anything remotely close to a democracy! If I remember correctly, the sloagan then was: defending the "free world", which meant any country that was friendly toward the U.S. Just because Taiwan IS a democracy now has nothing to do with the U.S position toward China - It's the good old geopolitics that's at work here, just as it has forever.
The same geopolitical interests of the U.S. also mean that even if China itself eventually evolves into a real democracy, there will be other excuses for the kind of confrontational policies that are being advocated by many politicians on this side of the Pacific. Put it simply, given the current pre-dominence, why should the U.S. allow any country in the world, regardless of its political system, become an equal competitor in the future? Does any one really believe that we would let a "democratic" country challenge us in any way?
We don't care about China because its people are too craven to challenge their totalitarian masters,
Oh, good point. That clears it all up. They don't call them yellow for nothing, right?
The Taiwan alliance is a relic of the Cold War. There is a plausible case for inertia in the matter. To betray them now would be, well, a betrayal. Aside from the moral objection, it would signal weakness and so arguably encourage aggression in the world generally.
Shorter every Thomas Friedman column ever written: If everyone in the world would do what I suggest, then my suggestions would work.
Kiril's right.
He wants "China and Russia [to] get their act together
That phrase needs to be eliminated from the vocabulary of people who write or talk about foreign affairs. Other countries do have their "acts together", every bit as much as the US does. They pursue their interests as they perceive them. Our problems in international relations are not a result of the disorganization, incompetence or short-sightedness of everyone else in the world. They are a result of the fact that other countries actually do have their own interests, which do not always coincide with ours.
In this case, notably, it is far more likely that a North Korean bomb sold to terrorists will be used against New York than against Shanghai.
I enjoy this site because the commentators post thoughtful comments and not vitriol.
Friedman is too limited in his outlook when he views the world through his American jingoistic eyes. Of course we would like China and Russia to follow lockstep with us. Of course having North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons us bad. Of course we must do everything possible to prevent nuclear proliferation.
We would be better served if Friedman offered a mechanism for that to be done and also if he told us why he thinks Russia and China don't trust us.
China and Russia aren't ambivalent about US power. They just want more power for themselves. Which is, of course, perfectly natural. That doesn't make it a good thing, though, for the US or anyone else.
"Oh, good point. That clears it all up. They don't call them yellow for nothing, right?"
I don't care what color their skin is. Clearly, people of any skin color are able to cherish and fight for freedom.
And the guy who stood in front of the tanks in Tianaman square - he is a hero. But a nation is a collection of individuals. The others did not follow his example - because they did not value freedom enough to do so.
But a nation is a collection of individuals. The others did not follow his example - because they did not value freedom enough to do so.
Please grow up. We re-elected an Administration that claimed the right to throw American citizens in jail just 'cause. And the threats we face are trivial compared to the threats faced by almost any other country on the face of the earth.
But the things we do don't always seem good to other governments. And, indeed, "being good" is sometimes bad for other governments.
If the other governments in question are brutal tyrannies - or even a has-been brutal tyranny like Russia - this statement is both obviously correct and morally irrelevant - even obtuse. The authoritarians of the world fear the U.S. would prefer their regimes destroyed. They are correct to do so because Americans, except for the Left, deplore tyrants and wish them ill. This is not a bad thing.
We could solve much of their ambivalence if we weren't so beligerant and self-righteous.
The U.S. is not belligerant as a matter of baseline policy. This is quite unlike, say, Mao's China, the late Soviet Union and current aggressively tyrannical regimes such as those in NorK and Iran which can accurately be described as "all aggressive, all the time" to paraphrase a talk radio slogan. We do have a few rules of recommended behavior for other nations, however. Don't gratuitously fuck with us would be at the top of the list.
As for "self-righteous," I have long regarded that as a left/liberal code phrase for "justified and correct, but antithetical to the aims of the Left."
For all they know, we'll be calling for regime change in their country before long (especially China).
Well, that pretty much has been the post-1949 policy of the U.S. Granted, I'm not aware it's ever been explicitly put to a congressional vote like we did for Iraq in 1998, but facts is facts. I, personally, will be delighted when the current Chinese regime falls. I'll be especially delighted if said fall is precipitated internally by its own long-suffering people with little or no bloodshed. I'm on record as predicting this will take place by 2017. What do you wish for?
Despite what people in America think, the United States is not the world's boss.
America has never attempted to be the world's boss. Nor, so far as I can tell, do any significant number of Americans wish for America to be the world's boss. The attitude of the average American toward other nations is, I think, characterized correctly, in summary, as follows:
1) The U.S. is the greatest country on Earth.
2) No other country is as good as the U.S.
3) We, therefore, have no ambitions to "take you over." We are uninterested in exerting ourselves to collect things that are second-rate or worse. Our interest in your country is pretty much restricted to mutual trade and - if your country is not a complete shithole - perhaps tourism, gastromonic novelty and carrying home planeloads of your native handicrafts with which to impress the neighbors.
4) We certainly have no interest in trying to dictate how you live within your own borders because, first, you would no longer be colorful ethnic natives suitable for photographing on vacation to show those competitive neighbors of ours, and, second, we would have to like, you know, live in your country full-time to keep you in line. We Americans prefer to live in America, thank you very much. If we thought otherwise, we would probably already be living in your country because we are free to go pretty much anywhere and, oh yeah, we're all rich doncha know. So please feel free to do pretty much whatever you want except for:
a) Attacking and killing Americans or plotting to do so.
b) Attacking and killing your neighbors if your neighbors happen to be people we do significant business with or like better than we do you.
c) Engaging in any wholesale internal pogroms or slaughters that make for lots of refugees and force us to take notice or go to a lot of trouble to help out.
These attitudes underlie and, I submit, accurately reflect the essential thrust of American foreign policy for at least the last 60 years.
No, America is not the world's boss and doesn't particularly aspire to the job. Neither, however, is it prepared to be the world's doormat, and quite properly so.
Why the Left accords so much deference to the aggressions and oppressions of the world's dwindling stock of squalid tyrannies under the rubric of "national sovereignty" or "anti-imperialism" is inexplicable except as reflexive anti-Americanism. America has succeeded because it has explicitly rejected most of the socialist project throughout its history and the Left is unhinged with resentment as a result.
Good comment.Thanks admin.
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
perde
jaluzi perde
stor perde
dikey perde
iso belgesi
iphone kılıfı
süper site
kozmetik
kolonyalı mendil
kolonyalı mendil
dolum
güvenlik kamerası
kamera
süper
sohbetim
joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil
http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com
sexshop
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
erotik shop
Post A Comment