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.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (9679)	2/18/2003 2:54:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

A responsibility to lead but not to act alone By John C. Bersia Columnist The Orlando Sentinel Published February 17, 2003 orlandosentinel.com From the latest al-Qaeda worries to divisions within NATO over Iraq, events of the past week have underscored the most pressing challenge and the greatest opportunity of the 21st century. The United States and other nations face a threat to their way of life and values from terrorist organizations that have extended their rampage of death and destruction to U.S. shores. At the same time, the world retains at its fingertips the promise of international cooperation that beckoned so beguilingly at the end of the Cold War. The so-called New World Order, which devolved into disorder and discord during the 1990s, can still emerge -- but only if nations work together against terrorism and other adversity. That's why tensions inside NATO trouble me. Does the opposition that France and Germany express toward near-term military action in Iraq result only from the policy orientation of the Bush administration? Or does their protest portend a historic split at NATO and potentially at other international bodies that traditionally have shared interests with the United States? The answer, while unclear at the moment, is crucial to the stability and security of the future world. One could argue that the Bush administration's tendency toward unilateral policymaking has strained NATO. But that should not necessarily provoke an unraveling of the Atlantic alliance. A more contentious view holds that the United States, as the world's sole superpower, must inevitably lurch in an imperialistic direction. Such a tendency by the United States would eventually undermine NATO. But I can think of other instances, notably the close of World War II, when the United States held a similar global position and chose not to dominate. Instead, Washington identified communism as a global threat and began coordinating the most extensive and successful series of partnerships the world had ever seen -- including NATO. That focus remained until the Soviet Union's demise. Although a few isolated communist nations endured, the "enemy" had met defeat. Curiously, though, after a period of initial euphoria, some Americans felt lost without an enemy. Eager to fill the void, various commentators began proposing new enemies, including environmental degradation, nuclear proliferation, China's rise to power, resurgent religious and cultural forces, and terrorism. None managed to captivate the majority's attention, although terrorism in all its forms should have. Terrorism poses a challenge similar to communism because of its global, open-ended nature, ideological fervor and dedication to overthrowing all that free people value. Also, terrorists have learned to create alliances and networks to boost their power and reach. The world must respond in kind. And the United States has a responsibility to lead the effort, just as it did during the Cold War. But to achieve that goal, Washington cannot act alone. Even a superpower lacks the resources to address and resolve all global troubles. It helps to incorporate other perspectives, including those of nations, such as France, that play the perennial role of international devil's advocate. The challenges and criticisms of friends force the United States to clarify its thinking and justify its proposals. I suspect and hope that is what is happening in NATO now, rather than the forging of an odd alliance between two of the United States' staunchest allies, France and Germany, and two of its worst Cold War adversaries, China and Russia. All have criticized the U.S. position toward Iraq. The Bush administration should try more persuading and less bulldozing to bring U.S. allies on board. Although international-arms inspections in Iraq have yielded little to date, they have symbolic importance. Besides, most nations want the inspections to continue for the few months that the investigation would require. Critics, including the White House, insist that there's no time to waste. Every day, they say, Baghdad grows more menacing. I understand that argument -- although it's difficult to see Iraq as becoming more dangerous as larger numbers of inspectors pour into the country -- but I'm not prepared to go to war just yet. Military action should be used as a true last resort, ideally with the world's support. ____________________________________________________ Foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia, who works part-time for the Sentinel, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida. He can be reached at jbersia@orlandosentinel.com