A nicely put small piece by Mr Gardner...
To share freedom a moral obligation
by J. Francis Gardner
San Antonio Express-News
02/15/2003 12:00 AM
news.mysanantonio.com
he-'ge-mo-ny \ n: preponderant influence or authority of one nation over others.
The United States of America: sole superpower of the 21st century; greatest military force in world history; strongest economic generator on the planet; technological leader; Earth's breadbasket; the big kahuna.
Yep, it's great to be king. But there are those who would see the king humbled.
Our country's looming conflict with Iraq has generated a new buzzword — American hegemony. Almost always used as a pejorative, the term is bandied about by critics (foreign and domestic) who oppose military force to oust Saddam Hussein.
That foreign governments would decry American hegemony is hardly surprising. What's puzzling is the extent to which certain Americans recoil from U.S. responsibility to take the lead in world affairs. It's as if these folks are ashamed to live in a country so overwhelmingly successful.
One way to mollify such embarrassment is to clamor for "multilateralism," another buzzword of late, here defined as the practice of using the United Nations to legitimize foreign policy.
At its best, multilateralism is a way of sharing the load. By getting other nations involved in the decision-making process, the burden of policy gets spread around. So does the burden of blame if things go badly.
At its worst, multilateralism is a way to compensate for moral cowardice. It is the mistaken idea that United Nations approval somehow bestows virtue upon an endeavor.
War with Iraq is either moral or it isn't. A benediction from the U.N. Security Council will not change that. How can any moral authority emanate from a council whose members include such stalwart freedom lovers as Angola, China, Syria and Pakistan?
The United States will neutralize Saddam because it is in the best interest of the American people to do so. It also happens to be in the best interest of the Iraqi people to do so.
French and German leaders gained much mileage lately by accusing the United States of acting "unilaterally." This does not mean that France and Germany have staked out the moral high ground. It only means that war with Iraq is not in their self-interest — yet.
Contrary to media spin, much of Europe does not share in the Franco/Teutonic timidity to jettison Saddam. Last week, eight European governments joined a growing coalition of two dozen nations who recognize it is in their best interest to see Iraq liberated. Now.
After all, what is it about American hegemony that troubles the faint of heart in this country and frightens certain nations around the globe?
Looking back over the 20th century, when has the United States ever: forcefully dismantled an entire political system; attempted to cleanse the gene pool; systematically destroyed cultural antiquities; stolen artistic treasures; or usurped the natural resources of any nation with which it has been in conflict?
The preponderant influence America has over the rest of the world, and ultimately the only export we can offer, is ... freedom. Freedom to speak, to worship, to vote, to work, to pursue wealth.
Our love of freedom gives the United States authority to intervene in other countries where human rights are flagrantly ignored. Failure to do so would be immoral.
If not America, then who? What other country understands the blessings of freedom any better? What other country has the muscle to remedy injustice on a massive scale?
There is only one national superpower. There is only one nation with the desire to see its success exported to all others. The world should give thanks that those two countries are one and the same. |
