Posted on 10/11/2006 3:54:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
October 11, 2006 - 06:42
Not the smallest bird doesn't fall but liberal pundits blame it on George W. Bush. A refreshing change of pace this morning, then, in the person of Thomas Friedman, who writes that the major responsibility for avoiding future international catastrophe lays not at the feet of the current occupant of the White House, but in Moscow and Beijing.
In the subscription-required The Bus Is Waiting, Friedman propounds the theory that the nuclearized N. North Korea and Iran will inevitably lead to a string of countries across Asia and the Middle East developing atomic weapons of their own.
To prevent this, Friedman asserts that it is necessary for:
"China and Russia [to] get their act together and understand that the post-post-cold-war world is a much bigger threat to their prosperity than a post-cold-war world in which U.S. power is pre-eminent. You read me right — the post-cold-war world can be preserved only if Russia and China get over their ambivalence about U.S. power.
"If China told North Korea that unless it dismantled its nuclear program and put its facilities under U.N. inspection, Beijing would cut off its energy and food, Kim Jong-il would relent. He is not suicidal.
"And if China and Russia told Iran that they would join in the toughest possible U.N. economic sanctions on Tehran if it persisted in its nuclear program, the ayatollahs would also back down. Because then the Europeans would have the spine to join in sanctions and Tehran would face a united front."
This is pretty heady stuff. Friedman is effectively demanding that Russia and China accept American pre-eminence ["hegemony" for those of you in the liberal establishment]. And in return, all Friedman demands of DC is some hard-nosed realpolitik. He essentially suggests that the US give up on spreading democracy via regime change, and focus instead on behavior change by the leaders of rogue states.
Friedman concludes by saying that - in the name of a relatively peaceful world - China and Russia need to stop being "free riders on our bus." Interesting formula for an MSM so typically quick to point the finger homeward for all the world's ills.
NY Times-Friedman/NewsBusters change-of-pace ping to Today show list.
Friedman IS occasionally sane, which tends to set him apart from his lib colleagues.
Pretty good analysis.
Agreed. However I wouldn't want him in foxhole or an lifeboat with me. He tends to panic, go hysterical and whine like a sissy-boy. When the going gets tough, Friedman is NOT one of the tough that gets going.
This means that Friedman will probably have a fatwa issued against him by the lib-mullahs al-MoveOn, al-Barbara Striesand, and the like.
Bump
Kinky is on the right road. The entire world needs to stop being "free riders on our bus".
But, Im afraid that so long as we offer free bus service the world will pile on.
Few people, and even fewer countries, are willing to act on principle and refuse a free ride. My main problem with Friedman (Tom, not Kinky) is that he's always saying what the world "must" do without an iota of realism.
Friedman is the kind who writes underhanded comments. For example: It's not all Bush's fault. Only about 99.5% Bush's fault.
Yes, folks, it's sarcasm...
I view Tom Friedman as somewhat benign.
Im not sure that he would be a bad thing in the Gov mansion.
Legislature will never pass any of his hare brained schemes. They may however, act on his better ideas.
The best thing about him is that he is NOT a proffesional politician. The worst thing about him is that he is a shameless self promoter ala PT Barnumn ;)
..."Kim Jong-il would relent. He is not suicidal."
Not so sure about that. Plenty of power mad tyrants through history have shown a willingness to gamble everything in their power grabs.
I have read most of Friedman's books. While he is a liberal, he seems to make more sense than the others at the NYT. His analysis of Middle East problems usually has some wisdom.
"And if China and Russia told Iran that they would join in the toughest possible U.N. economic sanctions on Tehran if it persisted in its nuclear program, the ayatollahs would also back down. Because then the Europeans would have the spine to join in sanctions and Tehran would face a united front."
These are more like the hopes & wishes of a third-grader. Anyone who who pays this idiot to convey his childish assumptions to the American public should be horsewhipped.
Agreed. Like Beijing is really going to cut off energy and food and create a scenario that makes our illegal immigration problem look like a few kids cutting through the yard.
My bad. I was refering to Kinky
Yeessh, morning always comes to early L0L
Never Freep before coffee
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.