Condi –v- Hillary
By Dick Morris
This book is the brainchild in every way of Bill Clinton’s political strategist, Dick Morris. His agenda is clear. Dick Morris takes it for granted in 2005 that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the only person within the Republican Party that can stand up to her is Condolezza Rice. He spends time in the book making and remaking the profile for Hillary Clinton. She is a political animal that will pander for votes and say or not say what needs to be said strictly for the purpose of achieving the highest office in the United States of America. Condolezza’s on the other hand was at the time our sitting Secretary of State with a robust agenda, and no time, or desire for the same goal.
Morris’ agenda is to generate a public ground swell to persuade her to take the challenge. Morris missed on both accounts. While Hillary Clinton did leave her post as a New York Senator to pursue the White House and fell short, Condolezza Rice upheld her responsibility as our Secretary of State and did not put her hat in the ring. Morris spent a bit of time creating the political backdrop for the hoped for race. He also spent a bit of time on the strategy that he assumes Clinton would take and then the countermeasures that he would recommend for Rice. To that end Morris is not the political strategist to the first African-American female president and remains an author.
The nuggets I captured however are the comparisons of the two women, the former and current Secretaries of State. These comparisons are useful today for many. Foreign leaders may need a quick comparison of dossiers, to prepare for a change in tone and style as there is a changing of the guard in our State Department. The general public will benefit when listening to the news sound bites that once came from Rice and will now be heard from Clinton.
When reading the book with expectation of keeping score for a United States President I found myself using a very different score card than I would if scoring for a Secretary of State. Making that translation finds me somewhat objective, for the first time, of Clinton and somewhat critical of Rice. It’s easy to be objective of someone with no appreciative track record on the subject. While it would appear easier to be objective with a person who’s whole career is based on foreign policy, there are a lot more data points that could cause one to be more critical. It is my hope that my translating Morris’ comparisons here will cause my readers to formulate their own opinions and then compare them to the conclusions I arrive at. My conclusion is comes after eh list of comparisons. So to be fair, please do not speed read to the end without allowing time to formulate your own opinion. Sharing them on this site may be enlightening for all.
The following are paraphrases from Dick Morris’ book Condi Vs Hillary where there is a purposeful comparison of the two women. Out of context of the book, there is an appearance of redundancy where the reader of the review does not benefit from the detail in context of the situation where the comparison was made. If you need to go get the book. I invite you to take in my work here and comment with your own contrasts and opinions.
Success and the Coat-tails of Success
1. Hillary: Though a bright and talented graduate at Yale Law School, Hillary had failed her D.C. bar exam and would have a hard time landing a top position in Washington. Women lawyers were not yet in strong demand, and a bar a failure would have been a major strike against her. An easy alternative was Arkansas, where se had passed the bar the previous year and had since been admitted to practice law. Her decision to move to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and accept a teaching position in a clinic handling criminal law – a subject in which she had never before shown any interest – changed her destiny and paired her future with Bill Clinton’s. When he was elected governor. She was named the Rose Law Firms first woman partner. When he was elected president, she ultimately evolved into a Senate candidate from New York.
Condi: Condi was never married and her success has never been a matter of hitching her wagon to the political fortunes of any powerful man. Instead, she advanced strictly on her own merits. She began her career by excelling as an academic and specializing in foreign affairs. Eventually she brought that that expertise to a family of presidents. But it was always Condi’s own accomplishments that made her a prominent figure. When she was still in her twenties, she was elevated to the Stanford University faculty. She came to Washington during the administration of President George H. Bush because she had impressed the National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, who met her at Stanford. After her White House experience, she so impressed the incoming president of Stanford that he asked her to be the provost…Through Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, she met then governor George W. Bush , and prepared him for the foreign policy issues. The younger Bush was so impressed by Condi’s abilities that he appointed her National Security Advisor and then secretary of state.
Experience
2. Hillary: came to the White House as a wife, with no experience in government, no portfolio, no administrative experience.
Condi: Rice entered the White House as a high-level expert, charged with guiding America through the delicate process of German reunification, the dismantling of the Soviet’s satellite empire in Eastern Europe, and the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union itself. Condi: while in the White House quietly advanced and enhanced her reputation in the field of national security and Soviet relations with a keen understanding of how to make the system work. She was a success.
Activism
3. Hillary: While in the White House created chaotic bureaucracy just to draft her health care bill, which happen to run more than a thousand pages. She alienated Congress – even in her own party- as well as health professionals and the press. The collapse of her reform plan was a colossal personal and professional failure on her first national public stage. But that doesn’t stop her. Hillary never stops thinking about tomorrow. Each day is devoted to plotting, scheming, preparing and positioning to advance further toward her goal.
Condi: Her style has been described as “diplomatic activism” Every day she is seen in center stage all over the globe promoting democracy by lecturing and cajoling our allies and standing tall against our adversaries. She is a creature of today.
Personal agenda
4. Hillary: is a plodder; she approaches the presidential race like a long to-do list.
Condi: is woman on a mission, but one with substantive purpose, not a personal agenda.
Riding on Coattails
5. Hillary: uses the media to bolster her image as a player in foreign affairs and defense policy, and then never points out her lack of credentials. She recently acquired a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has given her a platform, but so far has not been influential on any important matters…At best, she merely exploits relationships her husband forged with foreign leaders while he was president. While on international trips with her husband she was given the separate first lady’s tour of schools and hospitals, she did not participate in any matters of state during her husband’s presidency and has no real experience or expertise in foreign affairs.
Condi: See previous note
Recognition
6. Hillary: wants to be recognized by big-money donors, the national media, the political establishment, and ultimately, the voters themselves in her quest for power. Hillary believes that the best path to greatness is through politics, elections debating advertising, attacking, rhetoric, and maneuvering. She campaigns. Hillary is always telling people just how good she is. Hillary has one mentor, Bill Clinton.
Condi: has always banked on her ability to win admiration from important people to propel her. Rice’s career suggests the she put her stock in excellent performance instead upward. She auditions. She believes in attracting mentors and letting people notice her abilities by themselves. Condi has many mentors Czech refugee Professor Josef Korbel (Madeleine Albright’s father), National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Secretary of State George Schultz, and two presidents named Bush.
Promotions
7. Hillary: works day and night to achieve greatness. She demands to be promoted.
Condi: had had greatness thrust upon her, usually by men in positions of authority and power who are dazzled by her performance. It is they who seek to advance Condi.
Early Awards
8. Hillary: won no major awards in college. But she used canny timing and political smarts to achieve recognition at her graduation anyway. Having been elected president of Wellesly student government, she demanded that a student – herself - be permitted to address the graduates at the ceremony to protest the Viet Nam War and societal values. Her speech put her on the national map.
Condi: At the University of Denver, Condolezza Rice won every imaginable award. Graduating with a BA in political science, the nineteen-year-old prodigy was the most honored member of her graduating class. Admitted to the honor society Phi Beta Kappa, she won the outstanding Senior Woman Award, which the university said was the highest honor granted to a female member of the senior class whose personal scholarship, responsibilities, achievements, and contributions to the University throughout her University career deserve recognition.
Two Approaches to Greatness
9. Hillary: At the Rodham house, Hillary was under no stress for disciplined self-improvement with no sense of great obstacles to overcome.. Hillary’s own reports suggest that her childhood involved little of the structured nurturing and strict goal setting that Rice saw. Hillary writes the she grew up in a cautious, conformist era in American History and says her high school days resembled that of Grease or Happy Days. Where Rice pursued piano, flute, skating and French Hillary was playful. Rather than lessons and practice, she was just hanging out. Her elementary accomplishments mount to being elected co captain of the safety patrol. She lost her run for student council against boys and as a consolation; she was elected president of the local fan club for Fabian, a teen idol.
Hillary came of age in the context of a movement – the anti war student activism of the 1960s. In her memoir she sees herself from the start of adulthood as an agent of social change, an activist in a political world, always a part of a group, a phalanx committed to rearranging the world.
Like Hillary, the Democratic Party and its surrogate bodies deal with groups, seeking to enhance their cohesion and a feeling of commonality. The message was clear: We must hang together and move up or down this unit. The environment is tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, who learned to speak, act, and think as a group. She is a pack animal, at her best when she is a spokesperson for others, especially when attacking the group’s enemies.
Condi: Rice has a way of attracting attention and approval with her talents. Her first performance at the age of four years old was at a tea in Birmingham, at a “tea for the new teachers” where she was reportately able to read music notes before she could read letters. She was an accomplished pianist at an early age.
Her foreign policy interests date from her days as an undergraduate student at the University of Denver, where she was enthralled by Professor Josef Korbel. Rice began as she puts it to fall I love with foreign affairs. Korbel inspired her to become a professor, choosing academia over a career in law. Rice received her masters at Notre Dame and then a PhD at the University of Denver where she won a fellowship to Study at Stanford’s Center for International Security.
When Rice met Brent Scowcroft at a seminar in Washington she challenged him on his views. Brent said “this is somebody I need to get to know. It’s an intimidating subject. Here ‘s a young girl, and she is not at all intimidated.”
Rice was born of privileged professional elderly parents and was surrounded by a large community of structured support in Birmingham. She excelled in a culture of racism and stood up to it beyond the levels of her parents at every turn. She came of age rejecting group identification and insisting on her ability, as an individual, to rise above the limits her race imposed on her. In her startling rise to the top, she seems to belie the need for group cohesion or ethnic group advocacy. And, in this spirit, she identifies most profoundly with he core belief of the Republican Party: That it is the individual who matters, regardless of circumstance, geography, race, sex, or even poverty.
Their records
10. Hillary: Where Hillary’s record starts in 2000, that’s it 2000!; She passed fifteen symbolic bills, such as naming the courthouse after Thurgood Marshall and five substantive bills such as pay for city projects in response to 911. However she was particularly active in co-sponsoring bills, typically those of Republicans, to co-sponsor a bill you must simply sign ones name to it and attending a press conference – a free ride. She has been a knee-jerk supporter of bills that may gain her public visibility. Despite Hillary’s voluble pledge to fight for Israel in the Senate as she represented the state with the largest Jewish population, not a single piece of legislation, resolution, amendment or even expression of the sense of the Senate in the entire period of 2001 to 2004 even mentioned the name Israel. Yet Israel went through perilous times in those four years.
To review Hillary Clinton’s legislative proposals – most of which have not passed is also to grasp what a big spender she is. Hillary’s record as a far cry from the fiscal conservative she pretends to be as she wags her finger at the Bush deficit and demands financial restraint. In fact, as the National Taxpayers Union noted, “she has topped the Senate by sponsoring or co-sponsoring 174 spending bills.”
Hillary will deceive the public to create an image of herself as a person of real human qualities. She went on national television to tell a story of how she was a more than a New York Senator and that she was a concerned mother. She told the national audience that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the trade center when the 911 tragedy happened. Chelsea was three miles away staring at the TV in awe like the rest of the world. She was in no danger and her mother had nothing to be concerned about.
When it came to discovery of the cost of the damage she rode Senator Chuck Schumer’s coat tail around the city and then to Washington to garner $20M from Bush. Hillary invited journalist for a chat in the aftermath where she told them that it was not Chuck Schumer but herself that was responsible for the $20M.
Condi: Under President George H. Bush Rice was right in the middle of the superpower relationship with Russia. She prepared the president for four summit meeting with Gorbachev. She traveled with Bush to Poland and Germany to mark the fall of the Berlin Wall. She participated in the first summit meeting, the Seasick Summit on 16 foot seas in the Mediterranean Sea. Bush introduced her to Gorbachev saying “ this is Condolezza Rice, she tells me everything there is to know. Gorbachev replied, “I hope you know a lot.”
In those negotiations the neo conservatives of Washington did not want to get along with the Soviets they wanted to change it. But Rice, Bush, and Secretary of State Baker were reluctant to get too far ahead of the reforms in the Soviet Union lest they undermine Gorbachev. As Rice puts it “ When you have so much power, you have to be careful not to get in the way of historical events that are going your way. Too heavy of a hand might have provoked a countermeasure.”
Rice saw the reunification of Germany as the most important issue in this entire period…because that is where the Cold War began and that was the only place that the Cold War could end. They struggled with the balance of arms reductions talks and the complete dismantling of the Soviet Union. Rice felt that “there was a race to ending the Cold war while Gorbachev was still in power. It was a very delicate balance, a very short window of opportunity, because the Soviet Union had to be strong enough to sign away its four-powers agreement, but not strong enough to stop the reunification…I always try to remind people that some year and a half, fifteen months after we managed to unify Germany, the Soviet Union broke apart, so the timing could not have been better.
Rice and Yeltsin; Rice didn’t like Boris “he struck me as mercurial and difficult” she said. Nicholas Lemann observed that when you are dealing with Condolezza Rice and you are messy and undisciplined, you’ve got two strikes against you. When she brought Yeltsin to the White House they brought him to the basement door for a low profile entrance. Yeltsin folded his arms in the back seat of the car and said I’m not going in unless we meet in the Oval Office. After they glared at each other in silence Rice said. “Well we may as well go back to your hotel” Yeltsin backed down and the meeting went on as planned to the Russian’s delight.
Style
11. Hillary: Clinton’s style in confrontations are quite personal and unusually tied with her demand for political fealty with everyone she works with. No decision is made without politics injecting themselves into the equation. In the White House when it came to making cuts in her staff it was to eliminate anyone who was not loyal to her
Condi: After she left Stanford Condi reflected “Maybe I was too much of a hard-as. Maybe if I had to do it over, I’d be a little gentler. But Condi’s hammer was coated in velvet. She was charming, very gracious, but she can really come down on you when she has to. There is no hint of favoritism in Rice’s style. At Stanford when she made budget cuts she was all business.
Affirmative action
12. Hillary: On the merits, President Clinton said that he agreed that it would be better to base affirmative action on criteria other that race and gender, But Hillary convinced him that politics would not permit such a deviation from the party line.
Condi: She walked a narrow line she felt was right, backing opportunity by supporting affirmative action in hiring of the faculty but insisting on standards by opposing the awarding of tenure based on racial or gender criteria.
Education
13. Hillary: wrote a best selling book, It Takes a Village, urging a mentoring approach to raising and educating the young. She wrote of the importance of finding role models for children so they can become sober and responsible citizens.
Condi: Condi actually lived what Hillary wrote about. Condi was a professional educator, Hillary was not. Condi’s record is not just one of advocacy, but also of action.
At their respective pinnacle
14. Hillary:… if Hillary has a pinnacle, Dick Morris did not write about it.
Condi: In the Bush/Condi relationship with Condi as his National Security Advisor it was a partnership with Condi bringing an academic grounding, the perspective of history, and a dose of real politik. Bush contributed his unwavering grasp of good and evil, his values-oriented approach to international issue. As Nicholas Lemann puts it: Rather than her simply guiding him through the unfamiliar world abroad, it looks as if something more complicated and interesting were going on: he’s actually influencing her, and she seems to be performing for him in immensely useful service of transforming shorthand impulses into developed stated policy.
In a sense, Bush and Rice had both come a long way from their starting points on foreign policy based on the balance of power. Together they formed a consensus based on a Wilsonian world view, base on universal values and a commitment to freedom and democracy.
Post 911 Condolezza began to speak of a balance of power that favors freedom an interesting merger of the language of geopolitical strategy and the objectives of a morally based foreign policy. In the war on terror, she began the policy that to win the war on terror we must win the war on ideas. Terror she told a group “thrives in the airless space where new ideas, new hopes and new aspirations are forbidden. Terror lives when freedom dies. True peace will come only when the world is safer, better and freer.”Condi’s definition of freedom “I’ve watched over the last year and a half how people want to have human dignity worldwide.. Your hear of Asian values of Middle Eastern values and how that means people can’t really to democracy or they’ll never have democracy because they have no history of it and so forth. I remember the stories before the liberation of Afghanistan that the nation wouldn’t get it that they were all warlords and it would be chaos, then we got the pictures of people dancing in the streets of Kabul just because they now could listen to music or send girls to school.”
Two Women Two Paths
15. Hillary: at age 19 she was in her freshman year at Wellesley. When Hillary was thirty two, her husband was serving as governor of Arkansas and Hillary was promoted to partner in the politically connected Rose Law Firm, the mot prestigious in the state. At age 35 Hillary was settling in to life as Arkansas’ first lady. At age forty-six Hillary became America’s first lady. Her first task? A disastrous health care reform bill, which sullied Clinton’s first two years in office and led directly to her party’s humiliating loss of both houses of Congress.
Condi: at age 19 she was graduating Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Denver. In her twenties with no husband to latch on to Rice earned her PhD and a post graduate fellowship and was appointed to associate professor of political science at Stanford. At thirty five Condi began her service on the National Security Council as the president major expert on the Soviet Union. At forty-seven Condi was appointed National Security Advisor to President Bush
One –v- Two Messages
16. Hillary: Hillary is outspoken on terrorism issues and has volubly condemned the Syrian presence in Lebanon. But she also criticized Ibraham al-Jaafri, the new prime minister – the first since free elections were held – expressing “concern” over his Shiite background and possible ties to Iran. Here again she put her foot in her mouth: Most observers have gone out of their way to underscore al Jaafari’s nationalist animosity to his coreligionists in Iran against whom Iran waged war in the 1980”s.
Condi: Rice started her career as an apostle of the balance of power philosophy. The Bush camp circa 1999- 2000 was populated by the voices of “neorealism” In the New Republic, Jacob Heilbrunn quotes a senior advisor to the Bush campaign as saying “as power diffuses around the world, America’s position relative to others will inevitably erode…The proper goal for American policy…is to encourage a multi polarity characterized by cooperation and concert rather than competition and conflict” Heilbrunn also quotes the Bush as saying that “order is more fundamental than justice”. But Rice prevailed over those dour and pessimistic voices and helped President Bush to a new, values oriented optimism about America’s global role. A Wilsonian universal values philosophy. In 2002 Rice began to merge the two philosophies by speaking of the balance of power that favors freedom.
When I finished the book my gut told me that perhaps a pliable personality with no moral compass would make a good Secretary of State. Then as time raced forward and events merged with my finally completing this review I find the danger is she would be representing a president that is still campaigning... not for office of United States president but the Worlds Premier. So far on foreign diplomacy Clinton has shocked the world with statements like “we will not let China’s record on human rights get in the way of our discussions” are back stopped by a president who is willing to over turn anything that currently stands, starting with terrorism. Apparently by not saying the word the world can sweep it under the carpet. After going back through my notes I find In Hillary a woman that would impress a specific world leader that she will say what needs to be said to pander a cooperative stance that may not necessarily be in the best interest of the United States. While that sounds good at first glance, that world leader would be forewarned that the Secretary of State has a position that is blowing in the wind.
Contrarily the World leaders were experiencing a person that was professionally firm with a moral message that had a backbone. When she spoke World Leaders would be able to take her words, agreeable or not, as genuine. So let me restate them again here as I cannot improve on them: Condolezza began to speak of a balance of power that favors freedom an interesting merger of the language of geopolitical strategy and the objectives of a morally based foreign policy. In the war on terror, she began the policy that to win the war on terror we must win the war on ideas. Terror she told a group “thrives in the airless space where new ideas, new hopes and new aspirations are forbidden. Terror lives when freedom dies. True peace will come only when the world is safer, better and freer.” That foreign policy is about to be lost in the agenda’s of two people bent on power recognition for themselves.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The New Chinese Empire
The New Chinese Empire
by Ross Terrill
This is a must read book for those who have any notions that China is the oldest country of our world. For those who hold a belief that China as it stands today has been around for 2,500 years, or holds the most consistent line of government, and most importantly is therefore not imperialistic: read this book.
Terrell takes up a few basic themes in the book. First he elaborates of the dynasties of China. Dynastic China while it took it's beginning 2,500 years ago; each dynasty represents a change in rule. While the change in rule indeed represents a change in government, this change would typically also bring in a change in the boarder of an expanding China. Whether, having been conquered of having conquered, the result meant an expansion and solidification of the Sino/Chinese culture. While the Han people dominate Chinese populous and this brings the Confucius strain of thought, there are numerous other people from the periphery who now are considered Chinese. To draw from Jarrod Dianonds Gun, Germs and Steel this would simply appear at a natural evolution of civilization. Yet along with Confucism comes the other side of Chinese rule which is very autocratic. In the case of China, the evolution may have been more by force than natural selection. Against this historical background, Terrell connects the history with the present in order to predict where China may end up in the 21st century.
China is a state where corrupt fiscal policy is out of sync with its politics. While, dysfunctional fiscal systems funnel money to the elite few, the masses in regions on the periphery with a past not vested in a Han Tang culture find two reasons to call for reform. Yet in communistic China, as in Imperialistic China their voice for reform is like a fallen tree in the woods. With no one to listen, the reform has only one path which may predict a revolt. It is important to remember China has 2,500 years of experience in this area, so hope is not high from a historic point of view.
In the examination of the Dynasties we find a few facts that would suggest a well rooted behavioral pattern that would likely continue The question, can China escape it's imperialistic past begins to be answered in observing the post dynastic China which oddly enough began in 1911. The Qin dynasty fell under its own weight. Jaing Kei Shek took the reign with an attempt at democracy , then lost it militarily to Mao and now we see China’s current leaders holding on to imperialistic roots. In the question, will the weight of these roots work in favor or against the capitalistic culture of the west is speculated in eight different scenarios. While the author conveys an attempt to be objective, his bias is towards Imperialism. "China's present is claimed to be pretentious, aggrieved, and fearful in the face of today’s international issues. The PRC is caught between the compromises and mutual interdependent international existence and unilateral condescending, ideological pronounciamentos of an imperials state" is what the author really thinks
by Ross Terrill
This is a must read book for those who have any notions that China is the oldest country of our world. For those who hold a belief that China as it stands today has been around for 2,500 years, or holds the most consistent line of government, and most importantly is therefore not imperialistic: read this book.
Terrell takes up a few basic themes in the book. First he elaborates of the dynasties of China. Dynastic China while it took it's beginning 2,500 years ago; each dynasty represents a change in rule. While the change in rule indeed represents a change in government, this change would typically also bring in a change in the boarder of an expanding China. Whether, having been conquered of having conquered, the result meant an expansion and solidification of the Sino/Chinese culture. While the Han people dominate Chinese populous and this brings the Confucius strain of thought, there are numerous other people from the periphery who now are considered Chinese. To draw from Jarrod Dianonds Gun, Germs and Steel this would simply appear at a natural evolution of civilization. Yet along with Confucism comes the other side of Chinese rule which is very autocratic. In the case of China, the evolution may have been more by force than natural selection. Against this historical background, Terrell connects the history with the present in order to predict where China may end up in the 21st century.
China is a state where corrupt fiscal policy is out of sync with its politics. While, dysfunctional fiscal systems funnel money to the elite few, the masses in regions on the periphery with a past not vested in a Han Tang culture find two reasons to call for reform. Yet in communistic China, as in Imperialistic China their voice for reform is like a fallen tree in the woods. With no one to listen, the reform has only one path which may predict a revolt. It is important to remember China has 2,500 years of experience in this area, so hope is not high from a historic point of view.
In the examination of the Dynasties we find a few facts that would suggest a well rooted behavioral pattern that would likely continue The question, can China escape it's imperialistic past begins to be answered in observing the post dynastic China which oddly enough began in 1911. The Qin dynasty fell under its own weight. Jaing Kei Shek took the reign with an attempt at democracy , then lost it militarily to Mao and now we see China’s current leaders holding on to imperialistic roots. In the question, will the weight of these roots work in favor or against the capitalistic culture of the west is speculated in eight different scenarios. While the author conveys an attempt to be objective, his bias is towards Imperialism. "China's present is claimed to be pretentious, aggrieved, and fearful in the face of today’s international issues. The PRC is caught between the compromises and mutual interdependent international existence and unilateral condescending, ideological pronounciamentos of an imperials state" is what the author really thinks
Diplomacy
I got this book some time ago largely to just put on my bookshelf. After years sitting there, I read it because I have read a lot about Richard Nixon, but never anything by him. So sum up the book, it provides a prescription with statistical and analytical supporting argument for the way forward in world politics as the one remaining superpower. I did not realize what I was going to read about until I started reading and now must place it right next to Kissinger’s book on the same subject. While both men are despised by many from the political left, I believe their worldviews are required reading to formulate balanced views. When I contrast both books I find Nixon focused on the world of finance and business and Kissenger focused on politics and power. Both have a common denominator, which is national security.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
Sieze the Moment
I got this book some time ago largely to just put on my bookshelf. After years sitting there, I read it because I have read a lot about Richard Nixon, but never anything by him. So sum up the book, it provides a prescription with statistical and analytical supporting argument for the way forward in world politics as the one remaining superpower. I did not realize what I was going to read about until I started reading and now must place it right next to Kissinger’s book on the same subject. While both men are despised by many from the political left, I believe their worldviews are required reading to formulate balanced views. When I contrast both books I find Nixon focused on the world of finance and business and Kissenger focused on politics and power. Both have a common denominator, which is national security.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
Does America Need a Foreign Policy
Does America Need a Foreign Policy
By Henry Kissinger
While he does not take history to his typical intimate detail, this book is a valuable history lesson with a specific connection to a recommendation of American foreign policy. While I was expecting his recommendation to be finite in nature, I was somewhat let down, yet history and our current world order as he describes precludes such a narrow mind.
Europe
It is a popular concept in the western world, that sovereignty is derived through a democratic process whereby the people elect leaders who proscribe common law to abide by. Kissinger points out that the Westphalia agreement in post 30 Years War, where regions of land actually were bound by a specific demarcation line, lay the beginning of this popular belief. We have evolved from Kingdoms and Fiefdoms to a world largely dominated by a democratic process. Whether this is merely a transitional phase or the ultimate end is examined in the book. He does fall short in this book in proper examination of China. That review is forth coming.
In taking a historical look at America’s relationship with the various regions of the world, one can conclude that many of today’s nations either a.) Do not fall into this definition, or b.) Fall into this definition as a result of a settlement of a war. Kissinger takes the time to examine the difference between a nation and state, and the application of Wilsonian imposition of human rights versus national interest. Where is the balance in the answers? Again, Kissinger resorts to history in drawing his conclusion. Yet he takes a stand early on is stating that “So long as post Cold Was generation of national leaders is embarrassed to elaborate an un-apologetic concept of enlightened national interest, it will achieve progressive paralysis, not moral elevation. Certainly, to be truly American, any concept of national interest must flow from the country’s democratic tradition…”
Asia
The geopolitical challenge of every Asian nation is not so much how to conquer neighbors as how to prevent those neighbors from combining against it. Kissinger includes China in this assessment; there is historical evidence to challenge him on this accord. Kissinger recommends America to play the role of an independent broker and or arbiter of issues, yet remain implacable when the balance of power causes a threat to American interest.
In China, Kissinger recognizes the vast cultural difference in foreign policy and relates his personal experience on this point. While he describes the American emissaries effort beginning in 1971 as transitory he only scratches the surface of the reason for China’s impression of the US. He does make a cultural observation that I am personally familiar with and that is that the Chinese think in terms of stages of process that has no precise culmination, while Americans think in terms of concrete solutions to specify problems. The Chinese are averse to appearing supplicant they prefer an appearance of patience and aloofness. They do not rely on personal relations as a lubricant to agreement. They view Americans who hold such reliance as erratic and somewhat frivolous.
Kissinger describes the future of Taiwan as a wild card. While he recognizes Taiwan’s Nationalist Party and its goal to seek “One China on it’s terms, he does not describe the recent democratization of Taiwan whereby the Nationalist Party has been over shadowed by a freely elected government who’s vision is ambivalent towards a One China with either mainland or island bias. He describes diplomatic correspondence an international intrigue, yet fails to examine the historical and current internal psyche of the Chinese leaders. China is imperialistic as witnessed in Tibetan, and Mongolia for starters. China has a loose interpretation of boarders. China views the world has that that is Chinese and that that is subservient to China, in measured terms. While Kissenger recommends restraint on the part of Taiwan not to enflame the relations between China and the United States, I have found evidence that kowtowing to China is a slippery slope toward Chinese Imperialism.
Middle East
The challenge de jour of course is Palestine. How and where to define it. Kissenger sites a conversation he had with a member of Arafat’s regime sited Jaffa as his home not the West Bank. Arabs see Israel as a threat, back by the United States. Unfortunately, the ultimate solution for the Arab world is the abolishment of Israel as it exists in “Palestine.” Ironically, many Israelis I have met with while in Israel, just as-soon be given land in Iowa. When you drive around Tel Aviv the common architecture are malls, strip malls and every franchise store found in America. You would think you were in east East LA.
Kissinger clearly indicts the Clinton diplomacy as a failure in peace negotiations. He sites the Oslo peace accord as technically Norwegian, yet underpinned by the United States policy and then under minded by Clinton’s in ability to keep Saddam in the box, which according to Madeline Albright was the declared aim of American policy. The PLO failed to live up to any of the terms of Oslo. Meanwhile the Arabs while unified in military order against Israel, were coming apart in political unity. Clinton/Christopher failure to recognize this had led to a crescendo in global affairs. Clinton’s ambition to be the broker of peace during his term was quickly leveraged by all sides. Thus rendering the United States exposed to diplomatic blackmail and a victim of the conflict. He called the Camp David meetings as meetings of the deaf. I am sure in judging Kissinger’s’ overall sentiment towards the Clinton behavior on a world stage that the vision of a two term presidency would represent a view that international diplomacy begins with internal policy and the voice of the people as a instrument of national security against the forces from within.
Kissinger writes a nine step plan towards the Middle East situation. Central to these steps is recognition that allegiances with any European country would draw special interests of such that may be in conflict with American policy. While Europe craves public sentiment, there lay underneath a hidden national agenda. Basing policy around individual Arab nations runs the same risk for various reasons; depending on the strategic, economic, political, and security position of each country. In each case we find the United States going alone as the world policeman.
With regard to diplomacy and war being the final element of such, Kissinger points out that reluctance to war, brings as demonstrated in Viet Nam, the other sides tendency to circumvent positions not deemed beneficial. Not fighting wars to unconditional surrender has lead to compromised ends in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War resulting in continued loss of life or at minimum loss of liberty and quality of life on all sides. With Iraq and Afghanistan behind us militarily, Kissinger puts Iran in a light of caution. Rather than rush into the breach, Kissinger proposes to press for an improvement in relations with linkage to Iran’s willingness to depart from exporting terrorism to the world. Parallel steps must be taken as unilateral confessions has only proved to strengthen Iran’s tendency to fall back to terrorist ways. Step one would absolutely be the abolishment terrorism exports.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is a boarder of national interest??… of course. With regard to Nation States, such as Russia, an American policy must be comprised with a sense of respectful inclusiveness. Yet America must fully express that their concerns of balance of power does not end with the Cold War, and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations is a compromise of national interest to all nations. While this book was written pre 9-11, I find it most apropos, to steel a word from the French, that Kissinger was concerned. With regard to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD); Kissinger writes that “Whatever tenuous plausibility of MAD theory may have had in the two power world,” Richelieu’s balance “evaporates when eight nations have tested nuclear weapons and many regimes are working feverishly in the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction… IF one of these weapons destroys an American or European city by accident or design, how would democratic leaders explain to their public their refusal- not inability, but refusal – to protect them against even limited missile attacks? In this vein Kissinger strikes an emotional vote on the balance towards a defense of a nation’s interest, first being security.
While Kissinger recommends the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction, he suggests that with proliferation already in progress we should “not tilt against the windmills”. We should link other countries capabilities to their global agenda. Those agendas who pose a threat to the United States should be met with appropriate response. With regard to Iraq, my recent trip to Europe post Iraq War finds Europe in agreement with American and British led action. With regard to Nation States such as India a close relationship is warranted for common economic as well as other basic human rights issues.
Globalization
Kissinger describes the gap between the economics and the political world as the Achilles heal of the process of globalization. He sites that 20 percent of the world will be part of the international system; the rest will be left behind. This inverse parado exposes The United States as the leader to world resentment. There is the reality that economic growth requires reform and that reform requires political structure with transparent and an independent judicial system. Therefore in my opinion American statesmanship, and the concerns raised in George Soro’s book “The Crisis of Global Capitalism” must be given due attention. (review not written yet)
Closure
I did take notes when Kissinger began drawing contrasts to Jacksonians, Rooseveltonians and finally Wilsonian’s. He does a nice job demonstrating how the personalities of our leaders can be reflected in our public sentiment in the same way our children reflects the values of our parents. The interesting twist comes from the George Keenan’s “Domino” theories within the Cold War era and the roles each of the presidential personalities played in our public opinion. In applying the domino theory, Kissinger shapes an argument from nationalism vested in the era of Splendid Isolation, the National Security vested in TRex, and finally Wilson’s liberty of man. In the discourse it is interesting to note the hawk to dove and vice-versa of each of the left or right political parties. In summary the Viet Nam debate is portrayed as Jacksonian with no category for “limited war”. The Wilsonian’s had concluded there was a moral flaw in our rationale for war. Neither side were willing to support a gradual extrication designed to preserve American credibility in a Cold War environment where security still very much depended on American word. As we somehow managed to escape the trauma of Viet Nam, America today still finds the world hanging on it’s every word; both of the leaders and the people. It is the American people that elect these leaders. So I hold out the question, does the president reflect the voice of the people or are we simply followers. I would like to think there are enough to us paying attention.
The book closes with the concession that America, alone or with Europe is not in a position to right every wrong. A parallel argument is drawn using a corollary between Wilsonian policy and Jacksonian policy of our past.
By Henry Kissinger
While he does not take history to his typical intimate detail, this book is a valuable history lesson with a specific connection to a recommendation of American foreign policy. While I was expecting his recommendation to be finite in nature, I was somewhat let down, yet history and our current world order as he describes precludes such a narrow mind.
Europe
It is a popular concept in the western world, that sovereignty is derived through a democratic process whereby the people elect leaders who proscribe common law to abide by. Kissinger points out that the Westphalia agreement in post 30 Years War, where regions of land actually were bound by a specific demarcation line, lay the beginning of this popular belief. We have evolved from Kingdoms and Fiefdoms to a world largely dominated by a democratic process. Whether this is merely a transitional phase or the ultimate end is examined in the book. He does fall short in this book in proper examination of China. That review is forth coming.
In taking a historical look at America’s relationship with the various regions of the world, one can conclude that many of today’s nations either a.) Do not fall into this definition, or b.) Fall into this definition as a result of a settlement of a war. Kissinger takes the time to examine the difference between a nation and state, and the application of Wilsonian imposition of human rights versus national interest. Where is the balance in the answers? Again, Kissinger resorts to history in drawing his conclusion. Yet he takes a stand early on is stating that “So long as post Cold Was generation of national leaders is embarrassed to elaborate an un-apologetic concept of enlightened national interest, it will achieve progressive paralysis, not moral elevation. Certainly, to be truly American, any concept of national interest must flow from the country’s democratic tradition…”
Asia
The geopolitical challenge of every Asian nation is not so much how to conquer neighbors as how to prevent those neighbors from combining against it. Kissinger includes China in this assessment; there is historical evidence to challenge him on this accord. Kissinger recommends America to play the role of an independent broker and or arbiter of issues, yet remain implacable when the balance of power causes a threat to American interest.
In China, Kissinger recognizes the vast cultural difference in foreign policy and relates his personal experience on this point. While he describes the American emissaries effort beginning in 1971 as transitory he only scratches the surface of the reason for China’s impression of the US. He does make a cultural observation that I am personally familiar with and that is that the Chinese think in terms of stages of process that has no precise culmination, while Americans think in terms of concrete solutions to specify problems. The Chinese are averse to appearing supplicant they prefer an appearance of patience and aloofness. They do not rely on personal relations as a lubricant to agreement. They view Americans who hold such reliance as erratic and somewhat frivolous.
Kissinger describes the future of Taiwan as a wild card. While he recognizes Taiwan’s Nationalist Party and its goal to seek “One China on it’s terms, he does not describe the recent democratization of Taiwan whereby the Nationalist Party has been over shadowed by a freely elected government who’s vision is ambivalent towards a One China with either mainland or island bias. He describes diplomatic correspondence an international intrigue, yet fails to examine the historical and current internal psyche of the Chinese leaders. China is imperialistic as witnessed in Tibetan, and Mongolia for starters. China has a loose interpretation of boarders. China views the world has that that is Chinese and that that is subservient to China, in measured terms. While Kissenger recommends restraint on the part of Taiwan not to enflame the relations between China and the United States, I have found evidence that kowtowing to China is a slippery slope toward Chinese Imperialism.
Middle East
The challenge de jour of course is Palestine. How and where to define it. Kissenger sites a conversation he had with a member of Arafat’s regime sited Jaffa as his home not the West Bank. Arabs see Israel as a threat, back by the United States. Unfortunately, the ultimate solution for the Arab world is the abolishment of Israel as it exists in “Palestine.” Ironically, many Israelis I have met with while in Israel, just as-soon be given land in Iowa. When you drive around Tel Aviv the common architecture are malls, strip malls and every franchise store found in America. You would think you were in east East LA.
Kissinger clearly indicts the Clinton diplomacy as a failure in peace negotiations. He sites the Oslo peace accord as technically Norwegian, yet underpinned by the United States policy and then under minded by Clinton’s in ability to keep Saddam in the box, which according to Madeline Albright was the declared aim of American policy. The PLO failed to live up to any of the terms of Oslo. Meanwhile the Arabs while unified in military order against Israel, were coming apart in political unity. Clinton/Christopher failure to recognize this had led to a crescendo in global affairs. Clinton’s ambition to be the broker of peace during his term was quickly leveraged by all sides. Thus rendering the United States exposed to diplomatic blackmail and a victim of the conflict. He called the Camp David meetings as meetings of the deaf. I am sure in judging Kissinger’s’ overall sentiment towards the Clinton behavior on a world stage that the vision of a two term presidency would represent a view that international diplomacy begins with internal policy and the voice of the people as a instrument of national security against the forces from within.
Kissinger writes a nine step plan towards the Middle East situation. Central to these steps is recognition that allegiances with any European country would draw special interests of such that may be in conflict with American policy. While Europe craves public sentiment, there lay underneath a hidden national agenda. Basing policy around individual Arab nations runs the same risk for various reasons; depending on the strategic, economic, political, and security position of each country. In each case we find the United States going alone as the world policeman.
With regard to diplomacy and war being the final element of such, Kissinger points out that reluctance to war, brings as demonstrated in Viet Nam, the other sides tendency to circumvent positions not deemed beneficial. Not fighting wars to unconditional surrender has lead to compromised ends in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War resulting in continued loss of life or at minimum loss of liberty and quality of life on all sides. With Iraq and Afghanistan behind us militarily, Kissinger puts Iran in a light of caution. Rather than rush into the breach, Kissinger proposes to press for an improvement in relations with linkage to Iran’s willingness to depart from exporting terrorism to the world. Parallel steps must be taken as unilateral confessions has only proved to strengthen Iran’s tendency to fall back to terrorist ways. Step one would absolutely be the abolishment terrorism exports.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is a boarder of national interest??… of course. With regard to Nation States, such as Russia, an American policy must be comprised with a sense of respectful inclusiveness. Yet America must fully express that their concerns of balance of power does not end with the Cold War, and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations is a compromise of national interest to all nations. While this book was written pre 9-11, I find it most apropos, to steel a word from the French, that Kissinger was concerned. With regard to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD); Kissinger writes that “Whatever tenuous plausibility of MAD theory may have had in the two power world,” Richelieu’s balance “evaporates when eight nations have tested nuclear weapons and many regimes are working feverishly in the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction… IF one of these weapons destroys an American or European city by accident or design, how would democratic leaders explain to their public their refusal- not inability, but refusal – to protect them against even limited missile attacks? In this vein Kissinger strikes an emotional vote on the balance towards a defense of a nation’s interest, first being security.
While Kissinger recommends the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction, he suggests that with proliferation already in progress we should “not tilt against the windmills”. We should link other countries capabilities to their global agenda. Those agendas who pose a threat to the United States should be met with appropriate response. With regard to Iraq, my recent trip to Europe post Iraq War finds Europe in agreement with American and British led action. With regard to Nation States such as India a close relationship is warranted for common economic as well as other basic human rights issues.
Globalization
Kissinger describes the gap between the economics and the political world as the Achilles heal of the process of globalization. He sites that 20 percent of the world will be part of the international system; the rest will be left behind. This inverse parado exposes The United States as the leader to world resentment. There is the reality that economic growth requires reform and that reform requires political structure with transparent and an independent judicial system. Therefore in my opinion American statesmanship, and the concerns raised in George Soro’s book “The Crisis of Global Capitalism” must be given due attention. (review not written yet)
Closure
I did take notes when Kissinger began drawing contrasts to Jacksonians, Rooseveltonians and finally Wilsonian’s. He does a nice job demonstrating how the personalities of our leaders can be reflected in our public sentiment in the same way our children reflects the values of our parents. The interesting twist comes from the George Keenan’s “Domino” theories within the Cold War era and the roles each of the presidential personalities played in our public opinion. In applying the domino theory, Kissinger shapes an argument from nationalism vested in the era of Splendid Isolation, the National Security vested in TRex, and finally Wilson’s liberty of man. In the discourse it is interesting to note the hawk to dove and vice-versa of each of the left or right political parties. In summary the Viet Nam debate is portrayed as Jacksonian with no category for “limited war”. The Wilsonian’s had concluded there was a moral flaw in our rationale for war. Neither side were willing to support a gradual extrication designed to preserve American credibility in a Cold War environment where security still very much depended on American word. As we somehow managed to escape the trauma of Viet Nam, America today still finds the world hanging on it’s every word; both of the leaders and the people. It is the American people that elect these leaders. So I hold out the question, does the president reflect the voice of the people or are we simply followers. I would like to think there are enough to us paying attention.
The book closes with the concession that America, alone or with Europe is not in a position to right every wrong. A parallel argument is drawn using a corollary between Wilsonian policy and Jacksonian policy of our past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)