29 September 1997
TREND ANALYSIS: U.S.' 'UNDISPUTED' ROLE AS SUPERPOWER
Over the last several months, foreign editorialists have tendered a number of assessments of the U.S. role in today's post-Cold War international environment. Some of these commentaries focused exclusively on America's global pre-eminence, while others dealt primarily with specific regional problems and discussed how U.S. policies toward such areas as the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Latin America fit within the context of America's world leadership. The tone of the comments varied widely, ranging from outright praise to vitriolic condemnation of the U.S. No analyst, however, disputed the underlying facts--that the U.S. is the world's sole superpower and the dominant player in the economic, political, military, technology and cultural spheres, capable of shaping events in every corner of the globe. "The U.S. is the world's main pivot," admitted Paris's left-of-center Le Monde. A minority of commentators observed that there were some, primarily internal, forces--for example alleged U.S. isolationist tendencies and Republican opposition to President Clinton's foreign policy agenda--that place limitations on America's international prowess. Not surprisingly, opinion on the implications of U.S. global leadership also spanned a wide spectrum. Some analysts seemed almost paranoid about alleged U.S. intentions in the world. This group included those hailing from Russia and China--countries seen by many in the press as possible "challengers" to U.S. supremacy--and Serbia and Croatia, nations in a region where the U.S. is actively engaged. They saw an "imperial" America bent on a relentless hegemonic drive and predicted dire consequences for the world. Beijing's official, English-language China Daily held that the U.S. constantly "ignores" other countries' sovereignty and uses its power to "direct another country to do whatever (the U.S.) wants it to do. Those who dare to ignore the U.S. and challenge its authority become the 'bad guys.'" These same critics saw the urgent need for creating a strategic counterweight to America's predominant global power. Another group of editorialists in Europe, Asia and Latin America was less hostile. While still critical of certain facets of American policy--for example, alleged U.S. hubris--these media voices discerned less frightening scenarios for a U.S. superpower-dominated world. A number recommended cooperation with the U.S. on several fronts, including security and trade. A third group even praised the lack of strong international challengers to the U.S.' superpower status-- especially when weighed against any possible alternatives. Former Swedish Vice Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Per Almark opined in Stockholms' liberal Dagens Nyheter: "We often hear European thinkers express the view that it is not very sound or pleasant with only one superpower.... But was there a more sound situation previously, when Washington was balanced by barbarians in Berlin, Tokyo, or Moscow? Will matters improve when China's economy and military might by the year 2001 have grown so strong that Beijing dares to challenge the U.S. and its Asian allies?" Some media voices also pointed out the difficulties in being at the top. Ljubljana's left-of-center, independent Dnevnik suggested: "In modern history, no nation has so unexpectedly assumed the leading role.... If [the U.S.] wields its influence, it is called arrogant. Indeed, it is not easy to be the only superpower." This survey is based on 49 reports from 27 countries, July 24- September 29. EDITOR: Diana McCaffreyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE GERMANY: "The Clinton Doctrine" Rolf Paasch judged in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (8/30): "Never before after the end of the Cold War has it been as difficult as today to compose U.S. foreign policy. The disintegration of the military blocs and political alliances, and the acceleration of global events in an increasingly global economy require the great art of improvisation. Yesterday Haiti, today Bosnia, and tomorrow the post-colonial resumption of the 'great game' in the Caucasus. Who is able to discover in this cacophony of humanitarian, economic and strategic interests a basis for 'national interests?' This is why saxophone playing band leader Bill Clinton in the White House is the right man at the right time. Bill Clinton does not belong to any school of thought. He is cosmopolitan but from Arkansas, intelligent, but opportunistic--and a talented improvisor. Nevertheless, his team always tries to write concepts for a new foreign policy claviature.... "With the motto of an 'indispensable nation,' the president set the framework: The United States dominates the world, which means that it does not want to send police forces everywhere in the world. It calls upon its partners to show co-responsibility, but at the same time, the United States does not want to keep control over all important decisions. Irrespective of whether these are economic summits or military situation reports, Clinton's 'indispensable nation' acts like a zealot and arrogantly, and later it acts in a responsible and committed manner. Cowardly first and then leading in other situations, too weak to go-it-alone, but too strong for a game among equal nations. "UN Ambassador Richardson and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott have now tried to resolve these contradictions in programmatic speeches. The magic formula is 'regional integration and cooperation.'... Advocates of this policy would certainly praise the U.S. insight in the advantage of a regional solution of conflicts, while malicious tongues would simply call it camouflaged neo- colonialism. In any case, this 'Clinton doctrine' is the smart--and inexpensive attempt--to get rid of global responsibility without losing influence." "Curse Of Being The Leading Power." U.S. correspondent Peter Tautfest filed the following editorial for left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (8/12): "Which devil has seized President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright and gotten them to intervene in the conflicts in Bosnia and the Middle East and to link the U.S. foreign policy capability to act to the solution of these conflicts? Clinton and Albright have no other choice. In the Balkans and in the Middle East, the United States does not pursue social policy aims, but it has national interests in the region. Peace in the Middle East is as necessary for U.S. energy supplies and the security of Israel as quiet in the Balkans is for stability in the former Soviet empire. A new outbreak of the war in Southeastern Europe would demonstrate NATO's lack of influence and would result in the loss of an instrument of a U.S. policy that creates order. But beyond national interests, U.S. policy is also linked to an international peace order whose preservation can be guaranteed only by the United States. This is a curse which today's unipolarity brings along.... "Today, it is only the United States that can ensure global peace.... It is one of America's foreign policy aims and its civil mission to prevent the world from descending into in nationalistic wars.... As the only unrivaled superpower, the United States has not only entered upon the British inheritance. The region of today's U.S. engagement resembles a half moon which ranges from Northern Africa via the Levante to the Balkans.... It is today the task for U.S. foreign policy to generate modern supranational and transnational regimes." "World Power Increasingly Tending To Hobbyhorses Of Individual Politicians" Dieter Buhl said in a front-page editorial in left-of-center weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (7/24), "Ever since the United States has become the unrivaled superpower, it has indulged in inconsiderateness and arrogance: America against the rest of the world. This confrontation is becoming the pattern of international political crises.... Those who sense a relapse into the old isolationism behind America's rude social manners misunderstand the state of mind on the other side of the Atlantic. It is true that foreign policy meets with decreasing resonance in the vastness of the country, but the increasing importance of exports for America's prosperity in particular prohibits a withdrawal from global action. The motto is not to turn inward but to push through. America's will and ideas should determine the course of the world. Whether a secretary general of the United Nations has to leave office, or whether Turkey is forced upon the European Union as a member, or only three candidates are allowed to join NATO--Washington knows what is good for everybody.... "Jesse Helms & Co. are to a large extent immune to their predecessors' global sense of mission.... Foreign relations become ever more provincial. For lack of an outer threat to national interests, the world power is increasingly tending to the hobbyhorses of individual politicians. The president pays tribute to the shifted balance of power between the White House and the representatives of the people. During his last term of office and vis-a-vis a Republican majority in Congress, he can only conduct foreign policy in a gentle way. But as Bill Clinton himself is not immune to hubris, he will hardly put an end to the arrogance of his again much admired country. This is why, in terms of world politics, the strong one feels the most powerful when acting on a unilateral basis. Who--apart from Europe--could set America right? American 'lord-of-the-manor' manners have given the European unification process more than one impetus. Right now, there is again reason for unity. From Washington's UN-phobia to the danger of a Boeing/McDonnell Douglas monopoly--the European Union should argue against it.... The Europeans would also have the world on their side." FRANCE: "What's New? America" Gerard Chaliand, director of the Centre d'Etude des Conflits, wrote in left-of-center Le Monde (9/5): "The major element in the new international order of the post-Cold War era is the ever-growing supremacy of the United States.... On the sidelines of NATO's expansion, American policy wants to force Russia to abandon every hope of becoming an imperialistic power.... The United States is the world's main pivot, and for an undetermined length of time the European Union and East Asia, the two major economic poles besides North America, will position themselves in relation to the United States.... The United State is ranked number one and works hard to perpetuate this status.... The U.S. position as umpire does not seem threatened for the next 30 years to come." "U.S.: Another Planet" Pierre Rousselin wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (8/5): "Bill Clinton's United States is basking in euphoria. For seven years, economic growth has been uninterrupted. Full employment persists. Inflation is low.... Americans are asking themselves if they are discovering another world--eternal prosperity.... At the head of this country which has become the only superpower on the planet, Clinton is at the peak of his glory.... America brings its full weight to bear on the international scene. Easy victim of self- satisfaction, the United States sees itself as the sole arbitrator of international peace, from the Middle East to Bosnia and Africa. In Europe, NATO enlargement will be done according to U.S. wishes, and ironically, the United States will manage to get its allies to pay the bill." ITALY: "American Cultural Revolution" A front-page commentary by Paolo Guzzanti in centrist, influential La Stampa read (8/11): "American newspapers and weekly magazines speculate on the issue of the day: Are we leading the world because we are arrogant or because we are the best?... Now, with the ruling dollar...and Europe's inability to certify its future, the Americans are beginning to suspect that their irresistible victory depends...on the overall organization of their society, of which the economy is just one result.... They are discovering that they have created the only global laboratory of ideas on civilization and scientific research. That they are not only skilled merchants but also creators of new systems. And that they have won not only the economic and military confrontation with the rest of the world, but also the cultural one.... Therefore, for the first time, they allow themselves the luxury of imagining that their country is not winning because the dollar rises, but that the dollar rises because their society has been giving the best of itself.... And this awareness also explains their determination...in wanting to regulate and put out any fires of war.... In these weeks Europe has been dramatically focused on the monetary aspects of the superdollar...and therefore is not dealing with the fundamental issue: the global nature of American success and its possibly providing an alternative model." "New American Supremacy" A front-page commentary by leading economic pundit Mario Deaglio centrist, influential La Stampa said (8/6): "The dollar continues to go up.... To see all this simply as a whim of the markets...is certainly a narrow view. In reality, from Europe to Asia, capital runs to New York because the American economy proved to work better than the European and Asian ones.... Faced with this new American supremacy, Europe cannot but gauge the inadequacy of its policies and political vision.... If European governments do not move, they will be faced with months of turmoil in the exchange markets, where they will be forced to fight with extremely uncomfortable weapons--such as increases in interest rates-a battle against the strong dollar, which is already lost; they would come out from such a fight further weakened and American supremacy would become hegemony.... If they anticipate the beginning of euro, European governments would reaffirm the political nature of the decision, taking it away, as they should, from central bankers.... For sure, the new European currency will not be very strong initially, as happens with emergency deliveries. At least we are sure that the euro will be born and that this old continent will have something to rely on in the great international competition of the next century." RUSSIA: "NATO Enlargement: Second Wave To Swamp Neutral Countries" Neo-communist Pravda-Five (8/20) lamented in a commentary by Pavel Bogomolov in London: "Europe may lose the last islands of military- political neutrality--Austria, Finland and Sweden. A bleak prospect. It is one thing when NATO drafts countries that have grown on the Cold War, no matter which side they were on. And it is quite another thing when draftees are peaceful nations far removed from global confrontational politics. The healthy effect of 'the neutrals' proved vital every time Europe and the world plunged into excruciating talks on burning issues. This is how it was in the past.... Today those countries may lose what makes them peculiarly distinct in their approaches to the disturbing growth of the only superpower's hegemony." "The Challenge Of Beijing" Yevgeny Bazhanov said in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (# 31, 8/7): "Now that Russia is weak, America, it would seem, could try for global leadership. It really could but for China's fast-growing economic and military might. Beijing has in fact become a threat in the eyes of American strategists. The Chinese threat myth has also become ever more popular because 'the superpower' needs a serious challenge abroad. As for Russia, we don't have to fear China. True, China has made fast progress, but it has a host of difficult problems at home. So it is better to sell arms to China than not to do so, especially since its military potential is still relatively low and geared mostly to the purposes of defense. "But as we are engaged in this business, as in any other business, we must use discretion, if only because we don't want to scare China's neighbors along with the United States." "Eight To Resist U.S., Chinese Expansion" Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (8/15) ran this article by Alexander Fomenko about a new community of leading Islamic nations, the Islamic Eight: "Malaysia and Indonesia agreed to join, influenced by ideas of Islamic unity, as well as because the Eight may help hold back the expansion of U.S. and Chinese civilizations.... In the face of the EU's and NATO's enlargement, the emergence of the Islamic Eight, and the fast-growing economic and political-military potential of China, the Russians can no longer let things drift by, leaving everything to chance--it is time we started thinking seriously about having a complete and well-appointed Orthodox axis." "Russia More Attractive To ASEAN, Japan" Andrei Grachev remarked in reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (# 31, 8/5): "Russia, now less scary and menacing, draws ever greater interest, including among ASEAN member-nations, as a welcome counterbalance to China (and to the United States.)... With China's strategic potential growing by the day, even Japan, snug as she is under the U.S. umbrella, is willing to change the tone of relations with Moscow." CANADA: "Little Mines, Big Superpower" Gwynne Dwyer wrote in the Ottawa Citizen (9/24): "The United States has less military reason to want land mines than other major military powers, and banning them would have no serious domestic impact in terms of money and jobs.... So why has the U.S. administration paid a very large price, in diplomatic and public relations terms, to fight an arms-control treaty so popular at home and abroad? At one level, the reason Clinton took this stand is crassly political. Treaties like the land mine ban must be approved by Senate, and neanderthals like Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms...who...might well be able to block ratification. But at another level the White House's reasoning is almost theological. The United States, as the world's leading great power, must not accept any curbs on its behavior that are not also binding on all the other major military powers.... This antiquated thinking will keep the United States from signing the treaty for a least a couple of years, and it will lessen the pressure on the other holdouts to do the same." CROATIA: "U.S. Cultural Imperialism" In state-controlled Vjesnik (8/13), editor-in-chief Nenad Ivankovic contended: "One experiences America as an ardent nanny...a hegemonic superpower that cavalierly imposes its policies even on its allies.... Crudely put, it thinks that the world would be better and more beautiful and more civilized if everyone around the world would put on cowboy boots and wear a cowboy hat. This kind of cultural imperalism (which modern sociologists define as 'new American supra- national imperialism,' as opposed to the traditional territorial imperialism of the European powers) is not at all new. It is familiar from Wilson's time (the First World War) and has always--in the form of Calvinist moralizing--belonged to the components of American foreign policy. But what observers note today is the fact that the 'idealistic aspect' (personified by the absolutization of human rights without regard to the cultural or subcultural context and differences) is more and more dominant in American foreign policy, in contrast to the actual developmental tendencies of the modern world.... Co-existence, analysts caution, is really a key word for the contemporary world, which has become a global village where commerce has long disregarded national boundaries. In a word, the coexistence to which this world is clearly condemned is in basic opposition to every kind of hegemonic foreign policy, no matter whether it is called American or whether it is practiced in the name of an ideology as enchanting as that of human rights." NORWAY: "Isolationist Republicans Weaken Clinton's Global Visions" Tabloid Dagbladet commented (8/14): "The United States wants to make way for peace in Bosnia, the Middle East and Cyprus, but President Clinton's global vision is weakened by isolationist Republicans. The United States is the world's only remaining superpower, and therefore holds the key and potential to the peaceful resolution of many regional conflicts. An extremely isolationist Republican foreign policy, however, has reduced Clinton's ability to fully use this potential. Global leadership requires internal agreement--agreement which the Republican majority in the Senate and Congress have managed to eliminate." "The U.S. Dilemma" Leading tabloid VG observed (8/11): "Things are looking up for the United States--to such a degree that President Bill Clinton acts both patronizing and dictatorial when he's with other state leaders. This increases the old American dilemma: How to find a balance between being the world police and a braggart, or being a self-centered isolationist. Most countries should realize that the world needs a good-humored superpower to sort things out (supported by the UN). Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has promised that no one should be left out of the 'global system the United States is building,' and that 'everyone can get help from the United States to help them find the right way.' We would appreciate a little more clear and detailed definition of what this Pax Americana consists." POLAND: "New Tokyo-Washington Agreement: Who's Afraid Of Geo- Changes?" Center-left Gazeta Wyborcza commented (9/25): "[Japan's] Asian neighbors fear that the agreement [the revised U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation Guidelines] marks the beginning of an expansion of Japanese military power, and an increasing military rivalry between Tokyo and Beijing over the position of regional superpower.... The new treaty with the United States may anticipate changes in the [Japanese] constitution and be a step towards the restoration of Japan's military power. If it were not for constitutional restrictions and social limitations [pacifistic attitudes prevail in the nation,] Japan, with its strong economy, financial resources and the most sophisticated technology, could quickly grow to become a superpower equal to the United Sates." "Toothless Diplomacy" Centrist Rzeczpospolita's Jacek Kalabinski wrote from Washington (8/19): "The fiasco of the two missions of the Washington envoys [Ross to the Middle East and Holbrooke to Bosnia] testifies that even the United States--the only superpower left in the world arena--is not able to successfully pressure the parties involved in regional conflicts to abandon their disputes.... Over the last few years the United States has lost a substantial portion of its military and economic potential, which used to be a very effective backdrop for diplomatic endeavors.... What is of even more importance, both U.S. allies and potential adversaries see that America hesitates to engage military forces when there is a risk that an enemy will respond with armed resistance." SERBIA-MONTENEGRO: "U.S. World Strategy" Privately-owned tabloid Dnevni Telegraf (9/19) carried a commentary by a researcher at the Institute for International Politics and Economy, Dusan Nikolis, stressing that U.S. global policy is aimed at establishing American dominance in Eurasia, with control of the Balkans serving as a means to this long-term goal: "September 15, 1997 might become a historic date for international and geo-political relations in the coming 21st century. The fourth branch of the U.S. armed forces--the Marine Corps, the advance guard of all military interventions and wars of the United States in this century--had joint 'peacekeeping' exercises with the 82nd Airborne Division, deploying 500 paratroops in Kazakhstan, distant 12,000 kilometers.... "To have a political, economic and military-strategic control over Euro-Russia and Euro-Asia and to rule over them, means to rule the world.... In the U.S. mid-term (20-year) strategy of building up a planetary transatlantic-transeuroasian security system (from Vancouver to Vladivostok), the United States and NATO's breakthrough toward the east of Europe, the Balkans, and control over Bosnia, Serbia and the Adriatic, will only be serving as a bridgehead. The United States began the first century of its international life with the Monroe Doctrine 'America for the Americans.' This young, adolescent nation is now closing its second century with a slogan 'Euro-Russia, Euro- Asia to the Americans." SLOVENIA: "Alluring Role" Left-of-center, independent Dnevnik (8/28) commented: "The United States has found itself in an unusual situation: No country equals it on the military field, no country has stronger diplomatic influence, no one can slow down U.S. economic development.... All of a sudden, the United States has assumed the role of foremost power; envy and jealousy come with it. In modern history, no nation has so unexpectedly assumed the leading role; never has just one country been on the very top.... The irony of such relations is that it is impossible to withdraw from this paramount position. If the United States retired from its leading role, it would be absorbed by isolationism! If it wields its influence, it is called arrogant. Indeed, it is not easy to be the only superpower. Nevertheless, the United States does not refuse this role; it is predisposed to give an ear to the charm of power.... American foreign policy tries to resist the temptation of choosing symbolic policy. Despite stetsons, cowboy boots, and moralizing, the pragmatic school prevails in Washington." SWEDEN: "Thank God For America!" Former Swedish Vice Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Per Almark wrote in liberal Dagens Nyheter (9/23): "One peculiar habit of many Europeans is the lack of gratitude. Time after time the United States has saved freedom in Europe. Why not draw some conclusions from this?... The European states were hardly the ones to liberate some hundred million people from the oppression of Nazism, fascism, and Marxism. America was the one to do that.... We often hear European thinkers express the view that it is not very sound or pleasant with only one superpower. There should be more 'balance,' but was there a more sound situation previously when Washington was balanced by barbarians in Berlin, Tokyo, or Moscow? Will matters improve when China's economy and military might by the year 2001 have grown so strong that Beijing dares to challenge the United States and its Asian allies?... One can observe an interesting psychological phenomenon: The countries which America has saved from slavery under Hitler and Stalin often have a tendency to give way for loud criticism of Washington. But the only thing they will accomplish is to boost isolationist moods in the United States. Primarily Europeans (and a few hundred million Asians) will be the ones that will be hurt.... In the future, Democrats worldwide will most likely praise, in nostalgic words, the years in between the fall of the Soviet Union and China's military breakthrough. For the first time in history a democratic superpower was able to make an impression on diplomacy and crisis management. And the United States was led by a calm president with a strong sympathy for its allies. But people will, in the next century, ask the question why President Clinton did not do much more for democracy and security in the world when there was no tyrannical superpower to counterbalance?" EAST ASIA CHINA: "U.S. Consolidating Its Status In World Economy" Wu Zhihua wrote in the official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 9/29): "Always regarding Latin America as its backyard, the United States is using the American free trade zone to bring Latin American economic groups (Southern Common Market, the Andean Group and the Caribbean Community) into the free trade zone and under United States' leadership. "In this way, the United States can strengthen its ability to compete with the European Union and consolidate its status in the world economy. It is apparent that its plan has already been disrupted by the South American common market countries." "U.S. Meddles In Tibetan Affairs" Chen Yali said in the official, English-language China Daily (8/6): "According to...Secretary Albright, the United States will soon appoint a special coordinator for Tibetan Affairs tasked with 'protecting the unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage of Tibet.' The United States, as the single superpower in the world, just decided to do this, ignoring another country's sovereignty and its people. It seems unlikely that the Americans care more about Tibet than the country of which Tibet is a part. What they really care about is whether they have the power to direct another country to do whatever (the United States) wants it to do. Those who dare to ignore the United States and challenge its authority become the 'bad guys,' accused of bullying the weak and carrying out 'cultural genocide' in a minority region. The powerful U.S. news media try to persuade people to believe the 'made in America' view. Indeed, the legend created by U.S. 'white knights' hides the true ambition of gaining control over any developing country and spreading influence worldwide." "Trilateral Relations Among China, U.S. And Japan" Feng Shaokui of the Institute of Japanese Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences wrote in Shanghai's official Jiefang Ribao(7/27): "The relationship between China, the United States and Japan is an unbalanced triangle, in which the United States and Japan are allied countries whose relationship is stronger than the China-U.S. or the China-Japan relationship.... The U.S.-Japan Joint Declaration on Security...will make the unbalanced triangle...even more unbalanced, and this is obviously not good for Asian-Pacific stability. While the relationship between the United States and Japan has been strengthened, some people in the two countries energetically advocate the 'China threat' theory, which makes people eager to push China into sitting in the 'major challenger's' chair, regardless of whether there is a 'challenger.' Their intention is not to 'favor' China, but to see China follow in the footsteps of all major challengers in history, to see it weakened or defeated in the confrontation with a still- powerful 'leader' able to muster a strong alliance." JAPAN: "Japan-U.S. And Taiwan" Liberal, second-largest circulation Asahi front-paged this (8/15): "The Japan-U.S. security arrangement and the Taiwan issue are once more coming up as a major points at issue between Japan and China.... A quarter century after diplomatic relations were normalized, the source of trouble between Japan and China, though suppressed during the Cold War period, is now reigniting in reaction to changes in the international environment, such as the end of the Cold War, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and China's growing power. China is becoming more alarmed, suspecting the Taiwan area may be covered under the 'areas surrounding Japan' as stipulated in the new guidelines." AUSTRALIA: "America's Next Century" The editorial in the national, business-oriented Australian Financial Review (9/5) commented, "While Japan is still struggling to emerge from its extended 1990s slump, and Southeast Asia is rocked by financial market turmoil, the Americans have demonstrated the resilience and capacity for renewal of their well-practised form of capitalist individualism.... An economically vibrant United States is more likely to be prepared to retain its peace-securing military presence in East Asia. It is less likely to feel threatened by the rise of the presumed new superpower (and nuclear power) China. It is less likely to revert to 'America first' economic patriotism which would close off its markets to East Asia, which buy most of Australia's exports. And its revival should help head off the push for some sort of Asian industry policy 'Down Under.'" PHILIPPINES: "Albright Rebuffs Mahathir" Publisher Max Soliven of the third-leading Philippine Star wrote (7/31): "Secretary of State Madeleine Albright...made the boo-boo of trying to browbeat the members of ASEAN in their own backyard. Reacting to one of...the Malaysian prime minister's...mischievous pronouncements...that he was advocating a 'review' of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...Albright publicly retorted that America would be 'relentless' in opposing such a move.... The fact that Ms. Albright rebuffed Mahathir right on his own home turf...not (only) exhibited too much hauteur and lack of courtesy, but smacked of typical superpower 'bullying.' If nothing else, Washington must literally walk on eggshells in a world which is both envious and resentful of the powerful, prosperous, and, as many grouse, sanctimonious and conceited Americans." SINGAPORE: "ASEAN's Ties With China, Japan And U.S." Jusuf Wanandi, chairman of Indonesia's Centre for Strategic and International Studies, wrote this op-ed piece in the pro-government Straits Times (8/15): "China has problems of how to behave properly toward the United States. It needs the United States as an economic partner for modernization, but the ideological bias and great, power status of the United States also cause a lot of pressure for China. This is compounded by the capriciousness of U.S. policy, and the fact that the president is not focusing his attention on foreign policy, especially not that on East Asia or China. For the region, a stable strategic relationship between the United States and China is a prerequisite for peace and stability as well as prosperity and economic dynamism in the future, especially for small- and medium- sized countries that are adjacent to China, such as the ASEAN countries. This is why it is imperative for ASEAN to play a constructive role in contributing to the stability of this relationship, however, limited this contribution might be." SOUTH KOREA: "China Embraces U.S." Conservative Segye Ilbo held (8/16): "Beginning to realize that the United States is too important to keep at a distance, Chinese leaders have moved to embrace the United States. They now know that cooperation with the United States is imperative in achieving its primary goal of becoming a political and economic power by 2010. They also realize that China will be on the losing side if diplomatic clashes with the United States increase, and also know that they will especially need U.S. assistance in modernizing China's scientific technology. Their reform plan will require China to open up more, and that will demand a closer relationship with the United States. Inevitably, China will have to adopt a more pro-U.S. line of policy, and will maintain it at least for the next 10 years." VIETNAM: "Fishing In Troubled Waters" Lu Pho An wrote in official, biweekly Lao Dong (8/19), in its regular "Assessment" column, an analysis noting that "U.S. diplomacy of late is seen as becoming unusually hectic. Many special envoys of the U.S. government have been sent to 'problematic' areas. Their missions were not only aimed at fact-finding but also oriented toward bringing out 'the American factor' in all such problems. "Whether it is the Middle East or Cambodia, Bosnia or the Korean Peninsula, the United States can be seen always trying to establish its role as a mediator before other countries or international organizations can do the same.... Such initiatives reflect two new aspects of Mr. Clinton's current foreign policy in the second term of his presidency. First, Mr. Clinton attaches paramount importance to foreign affairs as a prerequisite for his influence that will help him achieve domestic policy objectives. Secondly, the Americans believe they have more favorable conditions than the majority of their partners regarding the use of diplomatic influence in solving regional issues. "The United States, however, not only makes full use of its influence to build up its role, but also aims to compete with many other partners such as France (in Zaire), ASEAN and China (in Cambodia), China and Japan (in the Korean Peninsula), EU and France (in the Middle East), and EU (in Bosnia). Observers are of the viewpoint that almost everywhere the United States only carries out a policy of 'fishing in troubled waters.' The parties directly involved and their traditional partners have proved incompetent in arranging settlements, while the United States has economic potential, military capability and political influence to jump into the game and play a broker's role. "Also worth mentioning is that U.S. interests are not always in line with those of all parties concerned. Hence, partiality and a lack of objectivity, which are more often than not misused by one party or the other, only increase tension in the relevant situations. Such differing interests make it impossible to bring about durable solutions and make the process toward compromise extremely difficult and full of mutual distrust, thus raising a lot of obstacles to implementation right from the start." MIDDLE EAST EGYPT: "What Is U.S. If It Cannot Intervene To Save Peace?" Editor-in-Chief Mahfouz Al Ansari opined in pro-government Al Gomhouriya (9/4): "[Albright] is different from Kissinger and Brzezinski.... She is pragmatic. She cannot allow her thoughts and policies to be trapped into a religion or a belief.... I believe that because she is all that, she is capable of doing what her predecessor failed to do.... She suffered persecution.... She faced dangers and fault-finding from others...and she has emerged victorious personally and publicly.... The human and moral aspects of Albright's personality should give confidence in the way her administration manages the deadlock crisis.... We would like to repeat these words to her: What good will a sole superpower do if it cannot intervene to save peace and eliminate the reasons for tension and war?" UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "U.S. Bears A Heavy Burden As Guarantor Of Peace" The Dubai-based, English-language Khaleej Times editorialized (9/2): "As the world's sole surviving superpower, the United Sates bears a heavy burden as a global guarantor of peace and stability. Nowhere is this burden heavier than in the middle east where relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors have been steadily deteriorating. Unlike many other regions, however, the Middle East is one place where the United States could lighten its own burden by telling Israel that the Jewish nation can no longer take Washington's support for granted, and that it must improve its conduct immediately.... The forthcoming visit by Secretary Albright gives the United States an opportunity to exert its influence at a critical moment for the Middle East.... Senior Arab leaders are calling on Washington to use Albright's trip to achieve concrete results and not let it pass into history--like Ross's visits--as just one of many failed peace missions. Yet that could well be the fate of the Albright mission too unless the Clinton administration told Netenyahu that enough is enough". SOUTH ASIA INDIA: "Front Row Seat" The centrist Pioneer commented (9/26): "It remains to be seen if there is enough of political will to tackle this fundamental sense of grievance against the UN. Otherwise, there is the danger of the organization being steadily reduced to the role of a handmaiden of 'the' superpower.... It is to be hoped that the General Assembly addresses those crucial areas of the reforms proposals such as the increase in the number of non-permanent members, the question of veto for the new members, as well as the restrictions that are being contemplated to circumscribe the effectiveness of the inductees." PAKISTAN: "Who Benefits From NATO Expansion?" Mr. M.B. Naqvi observed in the Karachi-based, independent Dawn (8/19): "It has...been widely noted and it is a part of the argument that the division of Europe is being perpetuated through not merely retaining NATO but expanding it. If, as some claim, greater unification of Europe is being attempted through this military instrument, other means could have yielded better results.... Could the main U.S. design in preserving with NATO and strengthening it be to counter what it sees as a possible Sino-Russian rapprochement and to take the new Sino-Russian understanding to be a more serious threat in the near future to justify their NATO policies?... Russians and the Chinese have agreed to cooperate with each other and work together in Asia, including possibly even forming a military alliance eventually. Should that happen the Americans will be rewarded with an answer to their quest for a credible and, to an extent, lasting adversary against whom money can be spent for improvement of armaments in the NATO countries. That would solve many of the immediate problems of the war industries in North America and Europe." SRI LANKA: "Challenge For Superpower: Integrate China Into Global System" Jayantha Dhanapala, former Sri Lanka Ambassador to the United States, wrote in the English-language, government-run Daily News (9/24): "The challenge for the United States as the sole superpower is to integrate China into the global system ensuring at the same time that the respective national interests of the United States and China do not collide but can be harmonized in the interest of global peace and stability. The fundamental importance of this bilateral relationship to the world in general, but especially to smaller Asian countries like Sri Lanka in particular, is obvious. The threat of a Sino-U.S. confrontation could be far worse with its global ramifications in the political and economic spheres. It is vital therefore for all countrie to bend their diplomatic efforts to ensure that Sino-U.S. relations do in fact proceed along a co-operative trajectory." LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA: "We Should Continue Playing The Game, With Guarantees" An editorial in pro-government La Prensa pointed out regarding a U.S. proposal to grant Argentina major non-NATO ally status (8/19), "It is very difficult to discover, if any, the real and secret purpose of this interesting move, but undoubtedly we need to continue playing the game. Even though it has its risks, it also offers the advantages of participating, to some extent, in that great country's [the United States'] enormous economic and technological power. Here, and ultimately, at this stage of world affairs, there is no room for haughty and solitary nationalistic attitudes. The British, in their long historic experience, say, 'If you cannot beat them, join them.' With due guarantees, of course." BRAZIL: "Albright's Clear Message To Hemisphere" In the editorial view of center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo (8/17), "Albright is not known for her sensitivity, but one cannot say she makes diplomatic mistakes inadvertently. Her sometimes brutal frankness always has a goal in mind.... When Ms. Albright announced to the world that Argentina is about to become the most recent U.S. 'strategic ally'...she was sending a clear message to all hemispheric foreign ministries: Washington will reward those nations that follow the precepts not only of its foreign and defense policies, but above all of its trade policy, and it will make difficult the life of those which try to follow their own courses.... "The message that really matters is about Brazil. Contrary to Brazil, Argentina has given unequivocal signals that it intends to align unconditionally with the United States since the first day of President Menem's administration.... The United States, however, is not at the service of Argentina in the region, but rather the contrary. "By announcing the alliance with Argentina, Madeleine Albright made clear that Buenos Aires will get political support for any initiative that represents the political weakening of Mercosul vis-a-vis the FTAA. Since Argentina has always made clear that it expects immediate economic results and possible political gains from Mercosul, and its strategy has been directed towards Washington, maybe the secretary of state will obtain what she wants. The atmosphere of the Group of Rio Summit in Asuncion later this month will indicate what the future holds for Mercosul." CHILE: "Strained Relations Between Santiago And Washington" Defense journalist Raul Sohr told readers of circulation-leading La Tercera regarding the choice of Argentina for major non-NATO ally status (8/21), "In a unipolar world, a euphemism to designate the uncontested power of the United States, an alliance or a privileged treaty between Washington and a nation of the region causes imbalance, even if it is a symbolic alliance." "Enormous Repercussions For Southern Cone" Ratings-leading, conservative, Catholic University Channel 13 TV aired this commentary (8/19) by Karin Ebensperger: "Argentina is giving clear signals that it is aligning (its foreign policy) with the United States, which has enormous repercussions for the Southern Cone. The Brazilian government reacted strongly, and the government of Chile with surprise.... Who loses with Argentina's new position? The answer, the countries in the Southern Cone that were making progress toward uniting to negotiate jointly free trade issues with the United States.... Who, then, wins? Answer: Argentina, apparently. But the question in the long run is how much sovereignty Argentina must cede to Washington for its alliance. The real winner is the United States. It succeeded in reviving the old rivalry between Brazil and Argentina, and it is making more difficult the improved relationship between Chile and Argentina. But in terms of its own interests, the United States is right. It's like Machiavelli used to say: Divide and conquer." ECUADOR: "Arms Sales Policy Directly Linked To U.S. As Power Of The Future" Joaquin Hernandez opined in El Universo (8/6): "There is something else, Latin America, or at least the most developed countries in the southern cone, fall into special categories as the United States prepares for the 21st century, lining up their list of customers and allies. According to Ethan B. Kapstein of Harvard's John M. Olin Strategic Studies Center, U.S. arms sales [to Latin America] policy is directly linked to the United States as a power of the future. U.S. world hegemony will be secured if it becomes the only supplier of advanced technology and advanced weapons. Its exports in this field imply a complex network of power and strength relationships. Such hegemony will be beneficial at global level, a sort of Pax Americana, where everybody--allies, enemies, friends and even 'disturbers of the peace'--would all be related to Washington which will be the only once which, because of costs and technology, will continue in the market. A sort of new world order in the war market." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 9/29/97 # # #Europe Middle East East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Latin America and the Caribbean
Return to Foreign Media Reaction Reports page
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
