Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
US ponders use of power
By Wang Yong |
April 6, 2013, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THOMAS Paine said in "Common Sense" in 1776: "Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest." He was daring America to stand against what he called the "tyranny" of British colonial rule at that time.
He did not foresee, though, that more than 200 years later America itself could become a "Leviathan" that would send troops anywhere, often with no justification by justice.
"Today is the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, one of the most shameful moments in American political and media history," wrote Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian on March 19.
"It is the 10th anniversary of the moment an administration misled (or lied, as many believe) its way into a war that would cost nearly 4,500 American and countless Iraqi lives, abetted by a media that, with few exceptions, was cowed into submission by the intensely jingoistic atmosphere that prevailed in the months after Osama bin Laden attacked us..." she continued. "The rationale for war, that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, turned out to be a fiction with biblical consequences."
Robin Abcarian's writing reflects the soul-searching of conscientious Americans who abhor a unipolar power gone wry. But has the lesson been learned? You may find an answer in the book, "Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order," by G. John Ikenberry, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. It was published in 2011.
"After World War II, the US engaged in the most ambitious and far-reaching liberal order building the world had yet seen," says the author.
"Liberal order" is far from an order under which everyone is free and equal; it's basically about rule through rules, consent and command, with America or American ideology at the center.
Insecure power
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in 2001, even this imperfect "liberal order" was discarded.
The author syas: "After September 11, 2001, America showed itself to be not the satisfied protector of the old order (of cooperative security) but a threatened and insecure power that resisted the bargains and restraints of its own postwar order."
The book elaborates on how America crafted and created "cooperative security" - arguably the most important innovation in national security in the 20th century - before it turns to why America's world dominance generated anxiety across the world by the end of the 20th century.
In 1999, before the terrorist attacks on New York, the US led the NATO bombing of Serbia, which, according to the author, raised questions about the intent of the US. The US also refused to sign some global treaties, which the author believes cast doubt on its commitment to shared norms. In the author's opinion, the terrorist attacks in 2001 only brought all these aspects to the fore.
Years of study in America have led me to admire this great nation in many ways, but as one of my American professors of law once said, I've found America sometimes short of critical thinking in the face of perceived threats to national security. In this weaker moment, free speech would be sacrificed and peace would make room for arms.
"The (George W.) Bush administration offered up a vision of order that was ... hegemony with imperial characteristics ... The world has rejected it, and the US cannot sustain it," the author says. He notes that, under the Bush Doctrine, the US declared that it would tolerate no challenge to its position as the world's greatest power and that it would send troops anywhere, even in advance of any manifest menace. It asserted its right to act unilaterally and to ostrasize any state that disagreed with its "war on terror."
Indeed, the US remains the greatest power in terms of military and economic forces, but as the author says: "The US has the capacity to dominate but not the legitimacy to rule...It has power but not authority."
He especially calls for the US to treat China as what it is: a chief player in today's order, not the builder of a rival one.
China has said many a time that the Pacific is broad enough for the two countries to co-exist peacefully. But America's "pivot to Asia" smacks of a unipolar power complex.
In my view, America is great because it has great minds who look inward at its own flaws instead of finding faults with others. America remains great because it dares to hope, not because it dares to hit.
He did not foresee, though, that more than 200 years later America itself could become a "Leviathan" that would send troops anywhere, often with no justification by justice.
"Today is the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, one of the most shameful moments in American political and media history," wrote Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian on March 19.
"It is the 10th anniversary of the moment an administration misled (or lied, as many believe) its way into a war that would cost nearly 4,500 American and countless Iraqi lives, abetted by a media that, with few exceptions, was cowed into submission by the intensely jingoistic atmosphere that prevailed in the months after Osama bin Laden attacked us..." she continued. "The rationale for war, that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, turned out to be a fiction with biblical consequences."
Robin Abcarian's writing reflects the soul-searching of conscientious Americans who abhor a unipolar power gone wry. But has the lesson been learned? You may find an answer in the book, "Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order," by G. John Ikenberry, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. It was published in 2011.
"After World War II, the US engaged in the most ambitious and far-reaching liberal order building the world had yet seen," says the author.
"Liberal order" is far from an order under which everyone is free and equal; it's basically about rule through rules, consent and command, with America or American ideology at the center.
Insecure power
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in 2001, even this imperfect "liberal order" was discarded.
The author syas: "After September 11, 2001, America showed itself to be not the satisfied protector of the old order (of cooperative security) but a threatened and insecure power that resisted the bargains and restraints of its own postwar order."
The book elaborates on how America crafted and created "cooperative security" - arguably the most important innovation in national security in the 20th century - before it turns to why America's world dominance generated anxiety across the world by the end of the 20th century.
In 1999, before the terrorist attacks on New York, the US led the NATO bombing of Serbia, which, according to the author, raised questions about the intent of the US. The US also refused to sign some global treaties, which the author believes cast doubt on its commitment to shared norms. In the author's opinion, the terrorist attacks in 2001 only brought all these aspects to the fore.
Years of study in America have led me to admire this great nation in many ways, but as one of my American professors of law once said, I've found America sometimes short of critical thinking in the face of perceived threats to national security. In this weaker moment, free speech would be sacrificed and peace would make room for arms.
"The (George W.) Bush administration offered up a vision of order that was ... hegemony with imperial characteristics ... The world has rejected it, and the US cannot sustain it," the author says. He notes that, under the Bush Doctrine, the US declared that it would tolerate no challenge to its position as the world's greatest power and that it would send troops anywhere, even in advance of any manifest menace. It asserted its right to act unilaterally and to ostrasize any state that disagreed with its "war on terror."
Indeed, the US remains the greatest power in terms of military and economic forces, but as the author says: "The US has the capacity to dominate but not the legitimacy to rule...It has power but not authority."
He especially calls for the US to treat China as what it is: a chief player in today's order, not the builder of a rival one.
China has said many a time that the Pacific is broad enough for the two countries to co-exist peacefully. But America's "pivot to Asia" smacks of a unipolar power complex.
In my view, America is great because it has great minds who look inward at its own flaws instead of finding faults with others. America remains great because it dares to hope, not because it dares to hit.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
