Posted on 05/26/2002 5:16:52 PM PDT by Pokey78
Louis Heren was an outstanding foreign correspondent for The Times in the 25 years after the Second World War. He covered Indian independence, the establishment of the state of Israel, the Korean War, the Malaysian emergency, the French defeat in Vietnam, the recovery of Germany under Adenauer, and Washington under the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson. Wherever he was reporting, he brought the same virtues of personal courage, realism and vigorous English prose. He was one of the great journalists. In 1968 Louis published The New American Commonwealth, written 80 years after Lord Bryce’s constitutional masterpiece, The American Commonwealth. Both writers emphasised the underlying continuities in American life, those aspects which were equally important in 1888 and in 1968. I find it extraordinary how many of Louis’s observations on his contemporary America remain as true as when he first published them. As he always insisted, the roots of American policy go very deep. There is a particular example at the present moment; one could call it the education of a President. Louis had observed President Kennedy’s painful and clumsy learning of the realities of international life. The President, he wrote, “ascends to his awful throne of power with little or no intimate experience of foreign affairs. Unlike a British Prime Minister he has not shared collective Cabinet responsibilities and experiences. He has rarely been party to decision-making. Professor Schlesinger claimed for President Kennedy a most varied and extensive international experience. As a young man, the professor solemnly reported, he had talked to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain, and Stanley Baldwin. Unimpressive as this early experience may strike readers, it was more than that of some other Presidents.” More, perhaps, that that of George W. Bush, though his father had been in the White House, whereas Kennedy’s father had been only at the United States Embassy in London. Louis went on to write: “A new President finds that he is to be tested in a field in which he has little or no experience, under the compulsions of public expectation and personal desire to make his mark. In such circumstances he tends to attach little importance to continuity, and indeed may resent it.” Certainly President Bush came to office more than willing to break the continuity with President Clinton’s policies. Like most Republicans, he despised and disliked Clinton. The new President is entitled to reject what he regards as the mistaken policies of his predecessor. However, he cannot alter the permanent realities of international life, which include the interests and attitudes of other world powers as well as the interests and attitudes of the United States. President Bush felt that the interests of the United States had been neglected; his voters wanted policies which visibly put America first. His early decisions were designed to assert American interest and American power. He felt that he had been elected to do that. His process of education began with the tragic shock of September 11, but it involved recognition of the interdependence of world power. He has learnt that the United States is, indeed, the only superpower, but also that even a superpower needs friends to help reach its objectives. Last week the education of the President was discussed, with unexpected frankness, by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. It is not always wise for Cabinet members to discuss, even in favourable terms, the personal qualities of their President. Powell praised Bush as “a quick learner”; he said that: “As a result of 9/11 particularly, he sees the value of coalitions and friends. He saw the value of having people on his side.” He went on to refer to the clumsy handling of Kyoto and added: “The learning experience of the China incident was: be patient.” All true, if not altogether tactful. Colin Powell must have had good reason to make his views public. He is, after all, the winner. In the first eight months of the presidency, before the terrorist attacks, Powell as Secretary of State was arguing for the diplomatic approach, while Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defence, was in favour of a more brutalist assertion of American interests. After September 11 it was Colin Powell, well aided by Tony Blair, who proved most useful in building the coalition of the war against terror, which made possible the initial victory in Afghanistan. The President’s visit to Europe and Russia has been intended to confirm and strengthen the coalition against terror. With President Putin he has signed a valuable treaty to reduce nuclear weapons. The treaty is not perfect, but it makes the world a somewhat safer place. In Berlin his speech reminded Europe of the reality of the terrorist threat. “In this war we defend not just America or Europe. We are defending civilisation itself.” Unfortunately, the reminder was needed. This policy is also one of the profound continuities of American purpose. It has been so since 1941, perhaps even since 1917. Pearl Harbor — even the sinking of the Lusitania — are somewhere in its symbolic history, as well as the twin towers. President Bush is determined to maintain the global coalition. That coalition has included Russia, the Commonwealth nations, the major European powers, the European Union itself, the other American countries, Japan, even China, Israel, India and the Islamic allies of the United States. In many of these nations, particularly in the Islamic countries, the US still faces critics, opponents and enemies. Some of the enemies are inspired by anger at real injuries and injustices in the world; some of the critics are motivated by jealousies or a distaste for American culture. “Americanophobia” is a current European fashion, particularly in France; it is silly and dangerous. The United States has both the power and the will to lead the world coalition for peace. There is no alternative, no other benign superpower waiting in the wings. No other country has the defence technology, no other country has the power or determination. Nevertheless, President Bush has had to learn from reality. In Berlin he again warned against Iraq, and the danger of Iraq possessing weapons for mass destruction; he was right to do so. If Iraq were to attempt another aggression, there is little doubt what the consequences would be. Yet neither the State Department nor the Pentagon believes that war against Iraq is an immediate option. The State Department does not think that there is sufficient international support; the Pentagon does not want to fight a war on two fronts, Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Reality is still educating the President. Iraq is a real threat; war is not at present a real option; in certain circumstances it could become so. The world of 2002 is a dangerous place. The conflict between India and Pakistan, though probably limited by nuclear deterrence, is highly unstable; so is the situation in Israel. Terrorism is a global menace. In 1954, speaking at Harvard, Adlai Stevenson, the most memorable of all defeated candidates for the presidency, told this truth: “It has fallen to America’s lot to organise and lead that portion of the world which adheres to the principle of consent in the ordering of human affairs. The burden is without historical parallel and so is the danger, and so is our response. For the quest for peace and security is not a day’s or a decade’s work. For us it may be everlasting.” Forty-eight years later, the same “quest for peace and security” still drives US policy. The European powers are not all noted for their modesty, but even they should recognise the lessons of the 20th century. Without American strength, the Kaiser would have won the First World War after knocking out Russia, and Hitler would have won the Second. Israel would not exist. The Soviet Union, however brutal and incompetent, would have dominated Europe. The whole world would be an infinitely bloodier place, with at best rare patches of threatened democracy. The global dangers from terrorism are now a threat to our remarkable peace and prosperity in Europe. The United States is the leader upon which we depend for security. Some exaggerated US self-interest, a few rough edges of diplomacy, a blunt Texan willingness to state uncomfortable truths, seem a small price for Europe to pay.
Contribute to Debate via
Comment@thetimes.co.uk
Hey an honest reporter!
On the whole, very good!
What's THIS crap??? Trust these Euroweenies to WHIIIIIIIIINE about Rumsfeld's adult approach as opposed to Powell's conciliatory puppy-on-its-back-piddling-into-the-air position...
It is vital that your diplomats and your military be seen as two approaches of the same policy, the carrot and the stick, if you will. If your diplomats are simply there to deliver declarations of war, you will have to solve all disagreements with the military. This is not good, as it costs lives which might be saved if the threat is implied and the diplomats can talk your opponent into a concession.
Powell is doing a good job; so is Rumsfeld. They are two sides of the same coin, which is American pre-eminence on the world stage.
Israel would not exist. The Soviet Union, however brutal and incompetent, would have dominated Europe.
These situations could not all be true. If Germany wins WWI, Hitler never comes to power, Russia becomes Communist but would not acquire its vassal states, and the Soviet Union never exists. If Hitler and National Socialism rise and are not opposed by the US, the Soviet Union would also never have existed.
Alternate histories are interesting speculations, but they really need to start at a point in REAL time and proceed along logical paths.
"Without American strength, the Kaiser would have won the First World War after knocking out Russia, and Hitler would have won the Second."
These ones are highly questionable, see below (*).
"Israel would not exist." Germany would not exist too.
"The Soviet Union, however brutal and incompetent, would have dominated Europe."
Yet another example of incredible level of genral journalistics stupidity - Hitler's victory in WWII, and European dominance of FSU are mutually exclusive.
"The whole world would be an infinitely bloodier place, with at best rare patches of threatened democracy."
"The global dangers from terrorism are now a threat to our remarkable peace and prosperity in Europe. The United States is the leader upon which we depend for security. Some exaggerated US self-interest, a few rough edges of diplomacy, a blunt Texan willingness to state uncomfortable truths, seem a small price for Europe to pay."
These ones are on the mark tough.
Yes, and while this article seems to give more credit than I would to Powell, we have a President who knows the value of good men, and opposing views to help him make decisions. Thank God!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.