American
Primacy Is
Not a Good Thing
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- How quickly the spotlight has turned from the
expansion of NATO to the expansion of the European Union.
But this is where it should have been concentrated all
along. If the former Warsaw Pact eastern European members
want security AND economic well-being this is the place to
find it, all in one. President Boris Yeltsin says he sees
that too; he wants Russia to win its own place within the
European Union.
The debate over NATO expansion has been a dangerous
distraction from the main task. At the least a distraction,
more likely something worse, a provocation, a running sore,
that could in post-Yeltsin Russia lead to a new era of
east-west confrontation.
Left to their own devices, the West European leaders
would never have thought up the expansion of NATO. It was
foisted on them by the hubris of their friend, the American
superpower which, in turn, had been lobbied by the east
European governments and their diaspora in the States.
Pueillanimously, the Europeans have gone along with it. But
all that shows is how dependent western Europe is on the
U.S. The Europeans still find it easier to take their main
political cues from Washington than cede a centralized
control of foreign policy to a European directorate, an
attitude that won't be changed until a solid core of the
European members have established a common currency and
bound themselves closer together.
The only hope for remedy in the immediate term lies with
the U.S. Senate which has the power to vote down President
Bill Clinton's eastward adventure. All the signs are that it
is going to be America's first passionate foreign policy
debate since the decision to approve doing battle with
Saddam Hussein. That passed muster with the Senate by the
barest of majorities.
The fundamental question that the Senate has to decide is
whether the Clinton policy of "democratic enlargement" be
allowed to develop into a Brezhnev Doctrine in reverse:
states that are authoritarian may become democratic, but
democracies will not be allowed to slip back. And if this
policy is now to be secured by a rigorous and expensive
military commitment to all of Europe, east as well as west,
is the mood of American hubris going to spill over to the
rest of the world? Is the U.S. now intent on exploiting its
huge advantage as the world's sole superpower to prevent any
other country becoming a new rival? Is this to be the age of
American primacy?
There are at least four good reasons why it mustn't be.
There is no clear need for America to balance some
countervailing power. Since the demise of the Soviet Union
there is only one candidate for such a role--China. But
China can never match America in the military or the
economic arena in the forseeable future. China has no
ambition to rule the world, only perhaps Taiwan, and that
can be handled in a civilized manner as long as Taiwanese
politicians don't provoke Beijing by pushing for
"independence."
Neither does America have a need to build up its reach to
deal with would-be nuclear powers. India and Pakistan have
no reason to threaten America. An Indo-Pakistan nuclear war
would be a terrible thing but it makes no sense for the U.S.
to get in the middle of the quarrel. As for North Korea,
Iran and Iraq and other would-be nuclear suspects, a
preventive war is simply not an option, given the ability of
these countries to disperse and hide away their nuclear
installations. A policy of military restraint will not
increase the danger of them becoming openly nuclear. Indeed,
by pulling back the symbol of provocation it could well
diminish it.
A third good reason is because America is not just a
military behemoth, it is a cultural and economic one too. It
has to decide which of these three exports is crucial to its
survival and self-identity. All pose problems of resentment.
All the more reason to downsize the one that is
counterproductive, so that the other two meet less militant
resistance. The "Asian values" debate would probably have
less steam in it if America didn't walk so tall on all of
these three legs--and that in the long run would be better
for the cause of enlarging democracy--the supposed essence
of Clinton's foreign policy. The fourth is the simple
practical one: primacy in reality is unrealizable. Even if
it continues to spend on the military at Cold War rates what
can the U.S. achieve? At the height of its power it couldn't
defeat North Vietnam and, as Somalia made clear, the
American public don't want to see body bags returning from
other people's quarrels that don't directly affect America.
The intervention in ex-Yugoslavia only remains acceptable as
long as the protagonists remain exhausted by war and there
are no American casualties. As for Saddam Hussein, no other
contemporary figure has made himself such an easy target for
the kind of warfare American tanks do best, rolling across
an empty desert. America will cause an immense amount of ill
will, envy and even create the very enemies it wishes to
avoid if it uses its new economic strength and unchallenged
military power to attempt to stride the world. The expansion
of NATO is a serious enough mistake on its own but there
could well be a more catastrophic one in the making.
July 23, 1997,
LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|