The two parts of this article by Barry Rubin, director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA), focus on Iran and Syria, whom he describes as joined in a de facto alliance with Hamas and Hizbollah. Despite the four parties' many differences, Rubin maintains that they interact in ways that pose a fundamental threat to Middle Eastern interests of the West and the United States.
Though Arab leaders privately express dread of a nuclear-armed Iran, Rubin believes they will do "almost nothing" to block that outcome, which means they will seek safety in appeasement — unless the West, the United States, or even Israel acts to disrupt Iran's nuclear plans. Nor does he think that the region's Sunni governments will restrain Syrian efforts to destabilize Lebanon and Iraq, regain control of the former, and establish in the latter an anti-American government under Syrian or Iranian control that becomes an active participant in conflict with Israel and a sponsor of international terrorism.
Rubin therefore offers readers several dire predictions: An Iranian "bomb" would enable Islamist forces throughout the Middle East to "grow rapidly in numbers and boldness." Syria would become more hostile toward Israel, increase its efforts to subvert Lebanon's government, and increase support for the insurgency in Iraq. Hopes for an Arab-Israel peace would collapse, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would become thoroughly intimidated. Nor could the West again intervene in the region in the manner of Kuwait in 1991 or Iraq in 2003. All that and more might be achieved without using a single Iranian nuclear weapon.
In his complex and closely reasoned analysis, Rubin paints a truly frightening picture of the Middle East's future. No one should regard the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the collapse of international pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program as anything less than disasters for American interests.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
THE RISE OF CHINA AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEST
Dr. G. John Ikenberry provides readers a quite rational road map for relations with China in a context of U.S.-led multinational institutions. His guiding premise is that bringing China into the established system of rules and regulations will likely cause it to follow the paths of post-WWII Japan and Germany and post-Cold War Eastern Europe rather than attempt to establish a competing hegemonic system.
Ikenberry cites China's seat on the UN Security Council and its WTO membership — with its attendant submission to transparency and regulation — as examples of China already working with and becoming more entrenched in the established order. So far, so good.
Where we must be cautious is with the assumption that the United States has a flagging leadership position and with a subtext of criticism of the United States for not folding in the face of pressures to conform to irrational and harmful policies and agreements simply for the sake of maintaining “international order.”
Kyoto and global warming, along with the Law of the Sea, are only the most egregious of these expectations. Continuing support of the IMF — without a purpose since the abandonment of the gold standard — and the World Bank — with its increasingly obvious culture of corruption and mismanagement — also come to mind.
The value of the international system in guiding participation of emerging economic and military powers is that it is not only “open and rule based” but that it is principle based. Admitting China to a system of wavering Western resolve on fundamental principles would simply invite manipulation for unilateral ends.
U.S. leadership in maintaining the “rules and institutions that can protect the interests of all states” and “the openness and durability of the order” can only be achieved by remaining steadfast to the principles and ideals that created that order and made it a beacon for all nations.
Ikenberry cites China's seat on the UN Security Council and its WTO membership — with its attendant submission to transparency and regulation — as examples of China already working with and becoming more entrenched in the established order. So far, so good.
Where we must be cautious is with the assumption that the United States has a flagging leadership position and with a subtext of criticism of the United States for not folding in the face of pressures to conform to irrational and harmful policies and agreements simply for the sake of maintaining “international order.”
Kyoto and global warming, along with the Law of the Sea, are only the most egregious of these expectations. Continuing support of the IMF — without a purpose since the abandonment of the gold standard — and the World Bank — with its increasingly obvious culture of corruption and mismanagement — also come to mind.
The value of the international system in guiding participation of emerging economic and military powers is that it is not only “open and rule based” but that it is principle based. Admitting China to a system of wavering Western resolve on fundamental principles would simply invite manipulation for unilateral ends.
U.S. leadership in maintaining the “rules and institutions that can protect the interests of all states” and “the openness and durability of the order” can only be achieved by remaining steadfast to the principles and ideals that created that order and made it a beacon for all nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
