Power and Weakness
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/14/04 9:47 am:
And this was in the NY Times?!?
How unlike them. They must be slipping.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 05/14/04 6:41 pm:
Chekhov Too,
Sorry about using an incorrect name. I just looked up and saw the name Elliot without noticing it was a clarification by someone else.
Clarification/Follow-up by picassocat on 05/16/04 12:31 am:
In response to Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations".
His argument has been criticised on a number of grounds. First, it has been pointed out that to reduce the number of civilisations to eight or nine does not seem serious. The mention of a possible African civilisation is dubious. Africa is a rich mosaic of culture; so is Europe. And Europe is not the same as North America. What Hungtington lumps together as Western civilisation has considerable internal fractures. Civilisations are not monolithic blocs. Some, for example Islam, are defined primarily by their religious inspiration; in others, such as the Confucian civilisation, the relationship between the religion inspiring them and the political force they exert is less clear. In Western civilisation, Catholic or Protestant versions of Christianity form part of the cultural landscape, although citizens of Western states are deeply divided with regard to religious beliefs. In each of Hungtington's civilisations there are trends of thought that follow confessional lines, and others that follow secular lines - a subject of lively debate today in countries such as Turkey and Italy.
Besides religion, cultural splits make it difficult to look at civilisations as politically compact blocs. Hungtington talks of Latin American culture but ignores, for example, the division between the Spanish and Indian cultures. There are also considerable splits between social groups that benifit from the international economic system and those it discriminates against. On the African continent, oligarchies share Western values and cultural preferences while other groups make do with socially devalued lifestyles far removed from modernity. Who represents African civilisation, the English- or the French-speaking communities, or the masses that speak only local languages and lack access to Western technologies?
The second major criticism of Huntington's argument is that the relationship between states and civilisations remains unclear. If civilisation is the true independent variable, why did it give way to power relationships between states during the cold war? Furthermore, Huntington's own analysis of alignments between, say, China and Islam explicitly crosses civilisational boundaries and reflects the interests of powerful states. One might then argue that military power and the balance of power among states could overwhelm the influence of culture and religion.
Critics have argued that Huntington underestimates the enduring strength of Western civilisation, global capitalism, and interdependence. Whilst his vision does alert us to the way in which cultural values can exacerbate particular conflicts (eg between the former Soviet Union and Afghanistan, and during the war in the Gulf in 1991 and in Yugoslavia over the past decade), it remains flawed in some important respects.
Clarification/Follow-up by chekhovToo on 05/16/04 3:43 am:
Tomder55 - In the Power and Weakness article by Kagan, I couldn't help noticing Kagan using Kissinger to make a point.
"No one has made this argument more powerfully, and more presciently, than that quintessential realist, Henry A. Kissinger", Says Kagan.
Now lets take a look at Kissinger's CV.
"VIETNAM
Kissinger scuttled peace talks in 1968, paving the way for Richard Nixon's victory in the presidential race. Half the battle deaths in Vietnam took place between 1968 and 1972, not to mention the millions of civilians throughout Indochina who were killed.
CAMBODIA
Kissinger persuaded Nixon to widen the war with massive bombing of Cambodia and Laos. No one had suggested we go to war with either of these countries. By conservative estimates, the U.S. killed 600,000 civilians in Cambodia and another 350,000 in Laos.
BANGLADESH
Using weapons supplied by the U.S., General Yahya Khan overthrew the democratically elected government and murdered at least half a million civilians in 1971. In the White House, the National Security Council wanted to condemn these actions. Kissinger refused. Amid the killing, Kissinger thanked Khan for his "delicacy and tact."
CHILE
Kissinger helped to plan the 1973 U.S.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Salvador Allende and the assassination of General René Schneider. Right-wing general Augusto Pinochet then took over. Moderates fled for their lives. Hit men, financed by the CIA, tracked down Allende supporters and killed them. These attacks included the car bombing of Allende's foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, and an aide, Ronni Moffitt, at Sheridan Circle in downtown Washington.
EAST TIMOR
In 1975 President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met with Indonesia's corrupt strongman Suharto. Kissinger told reporters the U.S. wouldn't recognize the tiny country of East Timor, which had recently won independence from the Portuguese. Within hours Suharto launched an invasion, killing, by some estimates, 200,000 civilians".
And to think Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. Kind of ironic don't you think.
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 05/17/04 9:15 am:
you are correct about Kissenger. I do not suscribe to his 'realpolitik 'mentality . If I was to describe my take on International relationships ,I'd more identify myself as Wilsonian.Wilson believed representative governments held the key to world stability;and so do I .
