Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (15954)	2/8/2000 12:09:00 PM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

John, I'm afraid yours is a pretty old-fashioned idea of "vital interest".... If you were Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces then I guess you wouldn't send in your boys unless, say, Cuba strikes a deal with North Korea, providing for the latter to deploy nuclear missiles a hundred miles off Miami (er... doesn't that remind you of something?? tip:JFK) Or how about this: Noriega manages to escape from his high-security clink in Florida, gets back to Panama, and threatens to blow up a section of the Panama Canal! Well, all the above examples might be good fits for some action movie featuring Rambo or 007, however, they don't represent any realistic scenario where the so-called "vital interest" of the US would be in jeopardy.... I think the author below illustrates in his article a far better grasp of what could threaten the US's vital interests in the near future: The Revival of Fascism by James Hooper The revival of fascism is a greater threat than most observers realize. In its various guises--ultra-nationalism, neo-fascism, post-fascism, proto fascism, or some other form -- it now endangers democracy in many countries. Unless recognized and checked in time, the rise of fascism will undermine hopes for democratic expansion and improved security in the post-Cold War international order. Extreme nationalist parties have scored unprecedented post-war success in Western Europe. Some have attracted broader constituencies through sophisticated propaganda that downplays their extreme nationalist roots and exploits mainstream concerns about immigration and corruption. But the goal shared by all European extreme nationalist leaders is political legitimization as responsible, democratic politicians. The public-policy issue for the U.S. is to determine the standard to be met by such leaders before deciding whether to accept them as legitimate democratic partners. The Balkans provide a grim reminder that the hard-knuckled fascism of the 1990s can induce political psychosis in societies where it takes hold and historical amnesia in leaders who have the capacity and responsibility to resist it. Serbian President Milosevic used classic fascist means to define and pursue national aims: dictatorship, aggression, seizure of territory by force, destruction of pluralism and democracy, concentration camps, genocide, and reliance on diplomacy as bluff, gamble, and institutionalized duplicity. By modeling a violent and intolerant style of politics for a new generation of European political activists, he projects the power and discipline the fascist myth can invoke. Russian ultra-nationalists benefit from Serbian fascism. While extreme nationalist groups have not gained executive power in Moscow, they have seized and distorted the democratic political agenda. If fascism moves from agenda setting to office holding, the U.S. and Europe will be faced with a threat more dangerous than Soviet communism. The issue for Western policy-makers is to determine whether concessions to self-professed Russian democrats on important matters of principle and policy contain or embolden the ultra-nationalists. In Asia, Japanese ultra-nationalism is an incipient but containable threat. China is a different matter. As noted in Bernstein and Munro's book The Coming Conflict With China, "early twentieth-century fascism," rather than democracy, is one possible outcome of China's political transition. The inability of China's repressed democrats to play an active role in the transition significantly weakens the democratic cause there and shifts the burden of responsibility to advocates of democracy abroad who have a stake in influencing the outcome. What is to be done? The first step is to recognize that democracy is imperiled when the aim of politics becomes the process of defining enemies, especially when the enemy is pluralism. For example, to forestall additional defections by their own supporters, some otherwise democratic parties have begun to advocate firmer measures to trim the numbers of and social services provided to immigrants and refugees. In this way, the agenda of fascists begins to shift the policies of democrats. The irony of fascism is that its recognized hostility to multiculturalism gives it a genuinely cross-cultural appeal. Fascism is equally accessible to Chinese leaders seeking an integrative nationalist ideology in the waning days of communism, to Hutu leaders pursuing tribal dominance, to Russian and Hindu ultra-nationalists to Iraqi Baathists, to Austrian neo-fascists; and to U.S. militiamen, skinheads, and racists. The most pressing need at the moment is to acknowledge the global nature of the problem and ensure that policy-makers are properly informed about it. This will stimulate debate that takes account of the regional diversity and differing implications of the challenges fascism poses. And from this will come a better perspective for framing practical public-policy decisions that reflect the U.S.'s strategic interests, democratic values, humanitarian concerns, and commercial goals. The author is director of the Program for the Study of Contemporary Fascism and Democracy at the Balkan Institute, Washington D.C. 04-06-97 rferl.org