Recently, an open mike caught French president Nicolas Sarkozy and American president Barack Obama jointly trashing Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sarkozy scoffed, “I cannot stand him.He’s a liar.”
Obama trumped that with, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day.”
Advertisement
Two days later, in one of the most bizarre op-eds published by the New York Times in recent memory, Paul Kane suggested that the United States could literally sell out its support for democratic Taiwan for about $1 trillion. He argued that the Chinese might be so thankful to us for letting them get their hands on the island that they might forgive much of what we owe them.
So why does the United States take risks in guaranteeing the security of countries such as Israel and Taiwan? Surely the smart money — and most of the world — bets on their richer enemies. The Arab Middle East has oil, hundreds of millions of people, and lots of dangerous radical-Islamic terrorists. China is more than one billion strong, with the fastest-growing economy in the world.
But President Obama should remember that America does not think solely in terms of national advantage. In fact, only the United States seems to have an affinity for protecting tiny, vulnerable nations. In two wars, and more than twelve years of no-fly zones in Iraq, America saved the Kurds from a genocidal Saddam Hussein.
Greece today has few friends. Its northern-European creditors are furious with its profligacy and duplicity. Nearby, an ascendant Turkey is flexing its muscles over occupied Cyprus and new finds of gas and oil in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. In short, a bankrupt Greece of only 11 million people, residing in one of history’s most dangerous neighborhoods, has few strong friends other than the United States. The same is true of Christian Armenia, which likewise is relatively small and near to historical enemies in Turkey and Russia.
All of these peoples — Israelis, anti-Communist Chinese, Kurds, Greeks, and Armenians — have a few things in common. They have relatively small — and often shrinking — populations, aggressive neighbors, few strong allies, many expatriates and refugees in the United States, and tragic histories of persecution and genocide. Half the world’s Jews were lost to the Holocaust. Had Mao Tse-tung — the most prolific mass murderer in history — gotten his way, the entire anti-Communist Chinese population who fled in terror to Taiwan would have been wiped out. In the early 1920s, nearly a million Greeks perished in Asia Minor — ethnically cleansed by a Turkey that had at one time conquered and occupied Greece for more than 350 years. A million Armenians perished in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The stateless Kurds have often been persecuted by Arabs, Iranians, and Turks.
The day that we don't care about the little nations is the day we might as well give the key to the country over to China. To not defend and protect those who are hurting would be a contradiction of what makes America a good, proud nation. The fact that China even thinks that they should "absorb" Taiwan makes them even more evil in the sight of American citizens. But, with trillions of dollars in debt to China, we could one day be paying China back -- with the very money they use to get rid of little countries like Taiwan.
If you're interested in the U.S.-China dynamic, you can visit: www.bowingbook.com. This site gives an accurate view of how this country is affected by Chinese politics.
It's very interesting you point to the examples you did. Let's start with the Kurds. America liberated them under Saddam? Do you then discount how Turkey has been consistently engaged in a genocide of the Kurds, which continues today? I implore you to even just enter into some search engine: Turkey bombs Kurds, and see how awful and consistent this is. And with Israel, should we overlook the suffering of Palestinians, who are not even granted the luxury of a "small and weak" nation to be protected. Let us then move this into a larger context. Your examples are very selective. Why Kurds but not th Arab population in Lebanon who are largely ignored because Hezbollah has filled the vacuum of humanity so long ignored and often violently opposed by Maronite Christians in the region? How about the Indonesian occupation of East Timor? That's a very small country that the United States seemed to not find worth defending. There are numerous historical instances of America's convenient selection of places worth defending and places not worth defending. This article does a profound injustice by ignoring this selectivity and even in its choice of examples it demonstrates the same cruel thinking.
Nobility has limits. While some of the examples you cite may have merit, I don't believe all do. However, that is not the point - nor VDH's. America can't be all things to all people, that's not realistic. Discriminations have been made in the past and I am sure they will be made in the future and someone somewhere will say, "What about Tibet", or "What about the ___________". Perhaps even me.
Don't bemoan the giver that he didn't give to everyone.
This isn't about nobility, so much as human decency. My concern isn't that "American can't be all things to all people" but rather that the way that America chooses who to help is not based on human decency or a sense of humane morality, but rather on political and economic factors. We helped the Kurds against Saddam because he was our enemy, but not against Turkey because they are our friend. (The Arab Spring clearly demonstrated that the United States was on the wrong side of many popular struggles, until it became more politically and economically desirable to be on the other side.) We help Israel because they are an "ally" we created in North Africa/South East Asia, a region American, British, French, and other European nations' foreign policy has led to enormous destruction in human terms and in terms of popular sovereignty (We can also look to the United States' history of removing democratically elected leaders and instilling dictators - i.e. Pinochet in Chile). We ignore Palestinians because they resist the creation of this state in their homeland. The same we reason we oppose Hezbollah and other Arab and Islamic populations in the region who do not support Israel. It is true, we cannot do everything for everyone, that's perfectly reasonable. However, America's rationality for giving help is almost entirely based on political and economic factors, not genuine concern for human welfare.
Nevertheless, we do protect those nations like Taiwan and Israel. Of course it's in our own self-interest to act that way--I should hope we act in our own self-interest rather than risk our blood and treasure out of pure altruism--but at least they do get protected.
Who else would do that?
Neville Chamberlain decided that it was better to make peace with Hitler by cashiering Czechoslovakia. He thought that Britain's self-interest was better served by stabbing a small ally in the back.
Are you suggesting that's what the U.S. should do too, where nations like Israel and Taiwan are concerned?
I'm tired of hearing about all the foreign-policy sins the U.S. has allegedly committed. When it comes to dealings with other nations, I would prefer our history over that of Britain, France, Germany, or Russia any day.
My main problem with this argument is still that the decisions as to who to help is based on political or economic factors. Why did we intervene in Chile in 1973 to overthrow the democratically elected leader? Because he was a Marxist, a democratically elected Marxist. The United States, in its attempt to stop the growth of communism, replaced this leader with a dictator (dictators instead of communists is a popular trend in U.S. foreign policy) who slaughtered countless Chileans, and held thousands of political prisoners. This is far from the only example. If this is self-interest, which it is, we need to be looking towards more humanitarian ideals than self-interest.
Popular sovereignty is only so good as it fits into the confines of Western interests, apparently. This is the same reason Egypt struggled so long to nationalize the Suez canal or defend their borders.
Your point about Chamberlain and Hitler only proves my point, that self-interest is an inherently destructive force for foreign policy because it ignores and often violently suppresses the dignity of human beings and instead focuses on "good diplomacy".
Finally, cruelty of other nations or individuals (and those you mentioned certainly fit that criteria) does not excuse the cruelty of the United States. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing about "all the foreign-policy sins the U.S. has allegedly committed," because the people still suffering from them are so much more tired of them.
"the desision as to who to help is based on political or economic factors" Pray tell me what these decisions should be based on???? The duty of the United States is to its citizens first and foremost. Foreign policy is ceretainly not an exception!!! Chamberlain and Hitler prove YOUR point??? German seizure of the Czech Tsudetenland was neither in the interest of Britain nor was it good diplomacy!!!! It was appeasement and capitulation!!! When Humanitarian Interest trumps self-interest, the game is up. Please consider this; If the US abandoned its self-interest, how would we be able to advance ANY humanitarian interest???
I have explained what it should be based on: human dignity. If economics guided good morality, then there wouldn't be millions of Mexicans who have became impoverished and forced off their land because of NAFTA, which in fact in America's self-interest. Economics demands profit. Tell me how it is not a cruel contradiction of humanity that American companies profited of Nazi Germany and South Africa during apartheid, and American companies profiting off censorship of the internet in Syria (who's current regime I don't think many human beings could support, and surely none with any sense of human decency), or profit off doing business in Iran. Or American banks profiting off infusion of cash from Mexican drug cartels or Americans businesses profiting off the exploitation of Mexican immigrant labor. Look at where our money does go. Saudi Arabia and China, to name two important ones. Both nations have enormously catastrophic histories of violations of human rights, but we get oil from Saudi Arabia and exploited labor in China. Both in America's economic self-interest. Not to mention all the oil companies in Africa who have caused civil wars by choosing to give profits to one ethnic group over another. Economic interest often runs in direct contrast to humanitarian values, thus demonstrating the need for a more humane system of value.
Political interests work in the same inhumane way. How was the American coup d'etat in Guatemala of yet another democratically leader 1954, with the instillation of a military dictatorship that committed horrendous atrocities, in the interest of the American people, or even more importantly, any people? It was strictly a political move that was not in the interest of the American people or the Guatemalans or South and Latin Americans, or people anywhere. What kind of example are we setting to those who suppress political dissent in their own countries by the United States removing democratically elected leaders and instead putting in military tyrants. American political "self-interest" has resulted in so many atrocities, and I'd be hard-pressed to imagine that Americans or people anywhere in any serious contingent believe it was in their best interest for all this to be done.
Muhammad or Iqbal or whatever your name is: I am very glad that VDH was "selective" in NOT including some of your hobby horse favorites. The genocidal Palestinians would probably top that list.
And I love the use of "jingo". Your fave raves are or were mostly duplicitous murderers. Jingo implies a condescension, a concept that your buddies would howl at as naive, as they were simultaneously "smiting at the neck".
I find it disgusting that you've used racism to try to discredit myself and an entire belief in the humanity of an entire group of people (despite the fact that you are entirely off the mark, but you seem to think only someone with a name like those suggested -- an Arab I suppose you were going for -- could possibly care about the well-being of other Arab human beings) while in no way even commenting on the content of my argument. I commented on the original article because I strongly disagree with the content. My writing was not a personal attack on the author as an individual, but on the content of their argument. That is what discourse is about, and it's shameful to make this about race. We all as individuals who saw this racism should have called it out as unacceptable. It's never okay. Dehumanizing a group is what allows society to tolerate violence against them as a group. Deplorable, absolutely deplorable.
I would also like to comment on your mention of "genocidal Palestinians." If this is truly the terminology you wish to use, I find that unfortunate but then let's consider the facts. Israel was created on the homeland of the Palestinians with the active and tacit support of many Western nations. Did tribes in the Americas such as the Sioux or Mohawk have the right to fight for their homeland when European settlers came and committed one of the largest (if not the largest) genocide in human history? Were the Europeans really so noble that the murder of the indigenous peoples in the Americas was acceptable? Are the Israelis? You can't kick people off their land, tell them they do not have the right to national sovereignty, and expect them to accept this kind of indignity. Let's not be hypocritical, colonialism and subjugation of all kinds is destructive and inhumane.
As for your point about my username. I am an occasional reader of national review, and while I often find it deplorable as content, I felt especially strong the need to comment on this article because it is glosses so cruelly over the rationalizations in which decisions on "protection of small nations" are made. Again, this is not about me, but you have made it so in a vile and racist way. If you have real criticisms about the content of my argument then let's discuss them. I would love to. However, we, as a society, cannot tolerate the racism so apparent in your comment. Cruelty is cruel no matter who does it or it is used against.
Add one more to the list of small nations. It was America that ensured that Albania was recognized as an independent state in the early 20th century,and of course America went to war in the late 20th century to protect the Albanians in Kosovo.
For those who scoff at American exceptionalism, this is very strong evidence. We stand by the free peoples of the world when it may be more politically expedient to side with the more powerful tyrannical bullies. Best expressed here: External Link
We really would like to MikeB, but although we’re really busy right now helping all those people that are hurting, there’s just too many of them. We’re busy protecting Solyndra investors from risk, and public employees from the economic realities that the rest of us face. Of course we need to make sure that Fannie and Freddie executives are well taken care of. Heck we even need to make sure that we help market Maple Syrup because otherwise people might buy fake syrup, or heaven forbid even jam. External Link So you see, a few people that are hurting are going to fall by the wayside. But as long as the really important people get taken care of, it will all be OK.
We're going to put all those millions of unemployed Americans back to work, as soon as we have fired Obama from his current position of employment. That's the first necessary step.
I agree with what Dr. Hanson says but will add...the US historically successfully helps the’ little countries’ when we can and it’s in our advantage. Sure that may sound a little hypocritical or worse, self-serving as we tend to view ourselves through an altruistic window, but it is realpolitik.
There are and have been many ‘small’ and ‘hurting’ nations in the world. Many in Africa, what about Syria today, how about Haiti...why didn’t we save Tibet from the Chinese or Czechoslovakia from the Russians??
While obviously there is only so much a nation can do.
So yes we must help those who are weak but only when it is feasible to help and only those who share at some level our fundamental values.
Consider Somalia…certainly small and hurting…but we did not understand the culture, the environment, the logistics of support, or perhaps we did but went in half hearted and look what we got. Also consider that to go in full hearted was more than Clinton was willing to do. He learned his lesson and admitted as much when it came to Rwanda.
In this context...yes protecting Taiwan, Israel, Armenia, Greece, Kurdistan is not only feasible but beneficial for us to boot.
Cold as it may sound, doing what we can, when we can, in coordination with our national interests is the recipe for sound and successful foreign policy. Willy nilly help for all wanting nations would spell our doom. I trust Dr. Hanson knows this but article space constraints prohibit him from more detailed essays.
This is a great history lesson and call to arms - so to speak. And I am one of VDH's biggest fans. However, what this article misses in its reminder regarding the morality of nations and of peoples is a cure for the ills that infect the people of this country - imo. All of what he says is fine and good, but I see a distinct greediness is a large swath of this country that would sell-out the needy for a paid vacation.
It certainly needs saying that the interests that we protect around the world need protecting and why it is America that does it. I would be interested in VDH's take on whether America still has the cultural will and fortitude to do it.
That's well and good, but Obama says that we're no more exceptional than any other country. Right? How can we be surprised by our hasty withdrawal from Iraq and the dismantling of the missle systems in Eastern Europe? Oh, and that awful Bibi Netanyahu with whom we have to deal ever day.
