You may already know this, but I have great readers. If you’re like me, the majority of you read the posts once and check back in a week, skimming the comments if you read them at all. However, many of your comments are as good as or better than what write each day, and I’ve been trying to think of a way to reward and spotlight excellent comments. Here I’m posting five comments from last month that I think deserve your attention. Let me know in the comments if ya’ll like this; maybe it will become a regular feature.
- Future FSO on Questions on Hegemony -
- Kelsey on Dealing with North Korea -
- T. Greer on Talking to Muslims -
- Kristi on King Abdullah’s Not a Very Good Tipper -
- jc on I Got Soul but I’m Not a Soldier -
A few simple thoughts on a very complicated issue…
First, I think there have been and are attempts to balance America militarily. For example, Iran with nuclear weapons and Hugo Chavez with his attempts to form a South American alliance (not overtly militaristic, but I feel he wants a military alliance to ease his paranoia of an imminent American invasion). But even if successful, they wouldn’t fully balance American power.
I feel nobody has balanced America because the nations that most desire it are the weakest. Free-market nations, whether democratic or otherwise, have little to fear from America. That includes China. The only military alliance powerful enough to balance America would need to be comprise of developed nations, and developed nations need not fear America militarily. If any nation does, it is closed dictatorships, communist strongholds, rogue states, etc. These nations are not currently powerful enough to challenge America. Further, America is a very valuable trading partner. By challenging it militarily, you run the risk of souring trade relations.
Is hegemony advantageous to the U.S.? I don’t think so. The responsibilities outweigh the advantages. The world’s military problems fall on the shoulders of America. Our traditional foreign policy has been to follow our guiding principles rather than act out of self-interest. This sometimes leads us into conflicts that really should not concern us. It also creates strife domestically when our leaders claim to be acting on principles but seem to many to be acting out of self-interest. I think this is a general flaw in our foreign policy—principles over self-interest—but that’s a conversation for another time. Much more could be said about the benefits of hegemony to the U.S., but I’ll move on to your third question.
Is hegemony advantageous to the world? I believe it was; I don’t believe it is now. Throughout the Cold War, America’s power was a saving grace for our allies. After the fall of the USSR, America provided leadership as the world transitioned to a globalized economy. Now that that system is (perhaps precariously) in place, resentment will only build as America continues to dominate global institutions such as the WTO, IMF, etc. Because the politics, motives and interests of countries (even those in close alliances such as NATO) will never fully align, there will be a battle to influence the decisions that affect global affairs. The struggle in the future will not be for military power, but for influence, and American hegemony in that department will not be viewed positively by those who oppose us philosophically.
Yay! I’ve been waiting to hear your opinion on all this! Especially since here in Korea the damn thing barely made front page news, I’ve been interested in seeing what the diplomats have to say. I hear the expat side (here’s my North Korea category: http://www.driftingfocus.com/blogs/?tag=north-korea), and I hear the official news side, but I consider you folks to be somewhere in-between.
Also, for the record, I agree with you, in large part.
Frankly, I don’t think the US is going to be willing to actually make any move against the US, and at this point, North Korea doesn’t seem to be asking for aid in exchange for good behavior. Since our habit of threatening action and then doing nothing seems to only exacerbate the situation, I think the answer is, as you suggest, to sort of withdraw from the negotiations and let South Korea and Japan work it out. South Korea needed our help during the war, but they’re all grown up now and perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, especially if they can put their grudges aside and accept help from Japan.
Huh. I seem to be interpreting Seiple in a profoundly different way than yourself.
The person who takes the words and uses them to play an inane game of political correctness is a fool. Such was not their intent. Seiple is not saying “These words make Muslims angry, so lets not use them.” On the contrary, he is noting that much of our lexicon is being misconstrued. If America has an interest in communicating to the Muslim populace of the world, than we have an interest in preventing this from happening. Thus, his argument is that we should be more specific in the terms we use.
Instead of freedom, say “liberty” or “security.” In place of secular, say “pluralist.” The intent is not to coach our words in politically correct jargon, but to ensure that what we are saying is being understood as we mean it.
And honestly, that is nothing I can find a problem with.
P.S. I remember John Matel said much the same about using Takfiri instead of Jihadi on his own blog. (Then called called Matel-in-Iraq).
After closer reading of the article, it’s apparent that T.G.I. Friday’s isn’t even where they left the $64 tip….it was at a place called the Bayard House, where they sat for a half hour and drank tea and coffee. The tip for their meal at T.G.I. Friday’s was unreported.
Perhaps read a little closer next time, Hegemonist :) A very interesting point to bring up though! [Hegemonist note: sorry, I got that one wrong. Even Babe Ruth would strike occasionally, right?]
Well, this looks like the first response from someone actually in Iraq. Like everyone, I have a complex set of motivations.
This is a challenging environment for a number of reasons:
Many FSOs have profound disagreements with the policies that got us here in the first place. (Another blogger has noted that there seem to be no shortage of volunteers for Afghanistan at this point in time.) Whatever one may think of the big picture, making sure that we do our job right is important.
The world is a dangerous place. On the other hand, extensive precautions are in place to protect us from that danger. I’m concerned more by how those precautions limit my professional effectiveness than by the danger.With that said, the environment impinges more on some cones/specializations than others. For RSOs and Political officers, this may be the cutting edge. For some admin functions - the work may be similar to any Embassy. For my job responsibilities, this is a very challenging environment - in which quite honest
ly it’s difficult to get anything done.Likewise many join the Foreign Service to experience different cultures - which is a challenge here.
Several of my colleagues do have school age children; separation is very hard. Personally, I didn’t take any Foreign Service position until my daughter was 18.Some of my colleagues were pressured to come; some wanted to check the box before getting pressured; some may have been hoping for good onward assignments. My situation is a bit atypical in that I’m not a Foreign Service Officer. I’m a civil servant filling an FS slot - which does mean that if I want to work overseas I have to look at positions that no one else wants (Iraq was high on that list).
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Aw, I’m glad you chose mine! Thanks!
I do think that North Korea has become almost impossible to negotiate with at this point. They’re restarting their nuclear program with the justification that the UN is “picking on them”. When you’re dealing with a country that behaves so erratically, you need to switch to something other than traditional negotiation.
On that note, if the US were to stop negotiating with NK and let South Korea and Japan deal with it, I think that our focus should shift to dealing with the human rights issues there. They have some camps there that are just as bad as what the nazis had in WWII, and yet we largely ignore it. If the US could use our clout to bring those issues more to light and to the public consciousness, perhaps the rest of the world would step up to the plate in helping deal with NK. If you want an example, here’s a good one: http://freekorea.us/2007/02/18/holocaust-now-looking-down-into-hell-at-camp-22/