Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArti...px?ARTID=35831

    By: Bruce Thornton
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, August 06, 2009



    The great powers of history understood the truth of Virgil’s dictum that “they have power because they seem to have power.” As much as soldiers and weapons, prestige and perception are critical for a great power’s ability to pursue and defend its interests. Both allies and adversaries must show by their behavior that they respect and honor a dominant state, and understand that consequences will follow the failure to do so. And to reinforce the perception of its power, a major power must be willing to take actions that demonstrate that is worthy of this respect. To do otherwise is to create a perception of weakness and to invite encroachments on the state’s security and interests. The decline of great empires like that of Rome or of England is in part a consequence of the loss of this respect on the part of enemies and rivals, and the perception that they were weak rather than strong.
    Unfortunately, this is a wisdom that the United States has forgotten, as evidenced by former President Bill Clinton’s recent trip to North Korea to rescue two reporters who had been imprisoned for “illegally” entering North Korean territory. Many will no doubt praise Clinton’s “diplomacy” and hope that it may jump-start the languishing efforts to pry loose North Korea’s nuclear arsenal from Kim Jong-il’s dying grip. In fact, the whole episode is another in a series of humiliations, whether petty or serious, that have damaged America’s prestige and convinced its enemies that for all our power, we are weak and vulnerable.

    How else can one understand the sorry spectacle of the one-time leader of the world’s most powerful state flying cap in hand to a dysfunctional country ruled by a psychopathic thug? Does anybody think it shows strength for Clinton to apologize to said thug on behalf of two Americans who had been wrongly arrested and jailed? Doesn’t it rather redound to North Korea’s prestige that it has compelled a representative of American power to solicit a favor, pose for photos, and chit-chat with one of the most brutal dictators of recent history? And who knows what other concessions were promised or implied.

    Legitimizing rogue regimes and dictators, and creating the perception of equality by summits, conferences, and photo-ops, does not advance our interests. The symbolic elevation of such regimes necessitates the degradation of the United States, for what we think of as a demonstration of strength––that we can resolve disputes just with talk–– our adversaries see as craven weakness. After all, begging a favor always implies inferiority: as the African proverb has it, “The hand that gives is always above the hand that receives.” We may have infinitely greater power, but if we make it clear that we will not use it, then the perception of our weakness is just as effective in controlling our behavior as are fighter jets and tanks.

    Some may argue that our strength lies in our principles such as the rule of law and a preference for reasoned discussion over force. Indeed it does––but only when it is clear that our power lies behind our principles, that we believe in them ardently enough to use force not for territory or wealth, but to strengthen our principles and defend our security when we have determined they have been attacked. But to think that those principles and beliefs can stand on their own without being guaranteed by force is delusional, for the simple reason that most of our adversaries do not believe in the same principles. To our enemies, those principles are not self-evidently the best way to live, and so our adversaries must be compelled to respect these principles with deeds rather than words. The prestige of our principles depends on the prestige of our power.

    Liberals, however, have a different view of foreign policy. They think that our adversaries are like us and believe in the same goods, such as the resolution of conflict through reasoned discussion, and so liberals take force off the table. They think that our example alone will be sufficient to convince our enemies to change their behavior. We see this approach in the current administration’s overtures to Iran. More discussion, more diplomacy, more offers of various material boons like increased trade supposedly will convince the mullahs to forgo the enormous boost in power and prestige they will enjoy by possessing nuclear arms.

    Yet without the credible threat of force, all this diplomacy does not mean a thing to a regime that has nothing but contempt for us. Why else would they imprison three of our citizens? They know they will pay no price for dishonoring us in that way, that instead we will offer concessions, whether material or symbolic, the end result of which will be to further Iran’s prestige as a regime willing to stand up to the Great Satan and expose once again its weakness and corruption.

    This decline in America’s prestige started after the debacle of Vietnam, where a military victory was squandered because of a massive failure of nerve on the part of both Congress and the people. Four years later, Iran confirmed the estimation of our weakness by seizing with impunity our citizens and embassy. In 1983, we failed to punish Iran for its part in helping Hezbollah blow up 241 of our soldiers. Ten years later, we ran from Mogadishu after 18 of our soldiers were killed, putting the QED to our enemies’ perception that we were through as a great power.

    In 1996, Osama bin Laden explicitly linked al Qaeda’s bomb attacks on Americans in Saudi Arabia to the loss of prestige that followed these multiple failures to punish our enemies. In this fatwa, bin Laden starts by responding to Secretary of Defense William Perry’s statement after the bombing the lesson is “not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists,” which bin Laden correctly scorned as mere bluff:

    “Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered bits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines soldiers [sic] were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden [site of the 1992 al Qaeda bombing of a hotel where U.S. servicemen stayed on their way to Somalia] in less than twenty- four hours!

    But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens [sic] of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”

    One would be hard-pressed to find a more telling example of how the damage to prestige invites aggression, how blustering words not backed up by vigorous action creates contempt in our enemies.

    And now a new administration promises to repeat the same mistakes: avoiding the hard choices and tragic consequences a great power must accept in order to remain a great power, relying instead on words to pursue aims only deeds can achieve. If this policy persists, the perception of our weakness could very well in the end be more powerful than all our armies and weapons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of neo-conservative, nationalistic drivel. The fact is that North Korea is recognised by the Obama administration as a 'fragile state', which must be handled carefully (within reason). The citation of Vietnam as a situation where 'Congress and the people' weren't blindly supportive enough of this American imperialism - rather than a diabolically unjust and unnecessary war which could and should have been avoided - betrays the bloodthirstiness of this crackpot journalist.

    The only major point I agree with is the one on Somalia; where the failure to make an effective intervention has clearly lead to a much worse situation in the long run, both for the people of Somalia, and global security in general. However, this does not warrant a military attack on North Korea (where admittedly, there is also civil unrest in abundance), because of some diplomatic one-up-manship from the North Korean dictatorial regime, in unjustly detaining a couple of journalists and then letting them go at the first sign of real diplomatic pressure.

    The North Korean administration are trying their luck; prodding and pushing the USA to see what they can get away with, but if they no longer respected the power and - much as the militant neo-con word choice repulses me - 'prestige' of the USA, they wouldn't have been so hasty in handing them back over. Battering them with military action would be rash, and simply not worth the bother.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matt_DP)
    What a load of neo-conservative, nationalistic drivel. The fact is that North Korea is recognised by the Obama administration as a 'fragile state', which must be handled carefully (within reason). The citation of Vietnam as a situation where 'Congress and the people' weren't blindly supportive enough of this American imperialism - rather than a diabolically unjust and unnecessary war which could and should have been avoided - betrays the bloodthirstiness of this crackpot journalist.

    The only major point I agree with is the one on Somalia; where the failure to make an effective intervention has clearly lead to a much worse situation in the long run, both for the people of Somalia, and global security in general. However, this does not warrant a military attack on North Korea (where admittedly, there is also civil unrest in abundance), because of some diplomatic one-up-manship from the North Korean dictatorial regime, in unjustly detaining a couple of journalists and then letting them go at the first sign of real diplomatic pressure.

    The North Korean administration are trying their luck; prodding and pushing the USA to see what they can get away with, but if they no longer respected the power and - much as the militant neo-con word choice repulses me - 'prestige' of the USA, they wouldn't have been so hasty in handing them back over. Battering them with military action would be rash, and simply not worth the bother.
    You have completely missed the message of the article. The US provides global leadership in democracy, freedom, equality and has made alot of sacrifices to defend these core values. Clinton not only made cruical errors in foreign policy when in power but now he falls for North Korea's propaganda ploy. Appalling. No one is mentioning military action, but Clinton going with his begging bowl to North Korea is ridiculous. A just super power should not be cosying up in this manner to terrible regimes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder what "concessions" the US made in return for these two journalists...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    I wonder what "concessions" the US made in return for these two journalists...
    Merely the PR that came out of this will satisfy Jong-il, just look at the North Korean newspapers all picturing the two together. This will have a bigger effect than you might think, at least concerning Jong-il's status with the elite at home.

    Rumor has it he is prepping his third son to take over, being his third son he is not very old and (since age is very important in NK) this might pose a problem for the elite. Thus by showing them that he can get a former U.S. president to meet with him, Kim Jong-il is hoping they'll be persuaded that he is also qualified to choose a successor.

    One can argue that Jong-il is not very concerned with other people's objections, however, his son would have a hard time keeping the nation sealed off if he is not approved of (of course the regular citizen's voice doesn't count....)

    I'd give a lot to have been a fly on the wall during those three hours, and we can't really eliminate the risk that some "agreement" was made.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kajsa)
    Merely the PR that came out of this will satisfy Jong-il, just look at the North Korean newspapers all picturing the two together. This will have a bigger effect than you might think, at least concerning Jong-il's status with the elite at home.

    Rumor has it he is prepping his third son to take over, being his third son he is not very old and (since age is very important in NK) this might pose a problem for the elite. Thus by showing them that he can get a former U.S. president to meet with him, Kim Jong-il is hoping they'll be persuaded that he is also qualified to choose a successor.

    One can argue that Jong-il is not very concerned with other people's objections, however, his son would have a hard time keeping the nation sealed off if he is not approved of (of course the regular citizen's voice doesn't count....)

    I'd give a lot to have been a fly on the wall during those three hours, and we can't really eliminate the risk that some "agreement" was made.
    Great post. Yes he has named his young son as his successor, however I thought it would always be a smooth transition and Kim Jong-il wouldn't need to convince anyone about his son taking over. But from what you say, the elite may need convincing?

    Either way, Clinton has committed a huge error not for the first time. :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    But from what you say, the elite may need convincing?
    The rumors about Kim Jong-il's health problems seem to be planting seeds of doubt among them. This is hardly surprising, even though loyalty might be encourage within the regime there are only so many honest men (and women) when it comes to dictatorship. Of course his urgent need to show the world and his people that he can still rule with influence is most certainly a result of paranoia (a common trait with dictators, Idi Amin would be an obvious example).

    Whether the rumors about his health are true or not he sure looks frail sitting next to Clinton (perhaps that says more about the former U.S. President than anything else)

    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Either way, Clinton has committed a huge error not for the first time. :mad:
    Looking at the history of agreements with North Korea under its present leader, and knowing that history all too often repeat itself, I'd be tempted to agree with you. Nonetheless there's not much evidence of any important agreement (or any at all) having been made.

    I would also, in the current climate, be doubtful as to any further engagement with NK outside of the six party talks, but I don't see how the reporters could have been released much quicker. As a strong advocate for diplomacy and human rights I believe the least bad decision was made. (i.e. saving two lives and letting Jong-il have his PR show off) The consequences are still to be seen. I'm keeping both eyes open
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    You have completely missed the message of the article. The US provides global leadership in democracy, freedom, equality and has made alot of sacrifices to defend these core values. Clinton not only made cruical errors in foreign policy when in power but now he falls for North Korea's propaganda ploy. Appalling. No one is mentioning military action, but Clinton going with his begging bowl to North Korea is ridiculous. A just super power should not be cosying up in this manner to terrible regimes.
    I understood the article perfectly well, thank you very much. Indeed, you have not explicitly mentioned military action, but ultimately, to 'enforce' the values of democracy, freedom etc that's what has to happen - what else will the US do, impose sanctions to say they're doing something? Let's face it, that's the only course of action which is really effective and it would be ludicrous for the US to pursue it under the circumstances. Therefore, it's more or less a pointless article you've written here, whinging about the loss of 'prestige' and whatever else. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but he did the right thing here - which is all he realistically could have done. It's very easy for you to criticise his negotiation with the North Korean establishment, but you're not providing any tangible alternative, so I'm assuming you mean sanctions (which are a joke) or military action (which is a bigger joke). If Clinton had done nothing, then THAT would have been pathetic. However, he went to North Korea and made it clear that the detainment of these journalists was unacceptable, with the full force of the US military in his support - do you think the North Korean establishment would have buckled if he'd been representing Quebec? It's true that "politics is the art of compromise", and Clinton recognised that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This article seems to imply that only by instilling fear in the allies and adversaries' hearts can a dominant country maintain its stature and be respected by the nations inferior to it. I disagree with this notion completely since this kind of ideology is what leads countries to war with each other. When the superpower feels its "prestige and honor" are being threatened because it witnesses the inferior nations making its own decisions rather than acting on the advice offered by the superpower that would have put its [the superpower's] interest's above that of the other country's, it is more than justified to invade that country in order to teach the inferior country a lesson in respecting the dominant one, just because it is in a higher position than the other. This is what this ideology preaches in my opinion and it goes against the rights of the nations and their sovereignty, all the while also ignoring one of the fundamental moral principle ,i.e. respect others and you will be respected. Furthermore, for a country claiming itself to be a defendant of human rights and democracy, adhering to this ideology isn't exactly the best way to portray itself as such.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.