The interests of national security of the U.S. and South American values: primary and secondary

U.S. national security interests and American values: primary and secondaryI. Where thin, there and tear

Square of "double standards" of the U.S. — the viability of the legend of the so-called American values, the spirit that prevails over the real. And if ordinary Americans to this day believe in the fact that the values — different kind of "right" and "freedom" — the primary, the South American policy of rounded and other offices are well aware that such a base and superstructure.

Michael Cohen, creator of the article "The meaning of the sentence" in the journal "Foreign Policy", writes: "Throughout the history of modern American diplomacy American foreign policy than once torn between with 2 competing and often duplicating each other stresses: the protection of the interests of U.S. national security and upholding American values, namely, those relating to human rights and democracy . Shifts of 2— at times disparate — pulses were anathema to many presidents at the time, when they came into office. "

In general, as noted by Cohen, you can not know the existence of similar intensity, listening to people who talk about foreign policy during the election campaign. Indeed, in most cases, the "Applicants" of the highest office in America, "are the troubadours of human rights and cynically respond to any decision that may put the" interests "ahead of" correct "actions."

Today's presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the incumbent vengeance Obama just for the fact that the latter renounces South American values.

Obama allegedly Romney, just not interested in protecting American values around the world. For example, in Iran, he did nothing at all, says Romney, and democratic "Green Movement" was killed there. In Syria, Obama again is in no hurry to respond and "stop the bloodshed." Romney even said that in the end Obama transformed the Arab Spring in the "Arab winter".

In general, the candidate Romney stands for "tough game" in the name of human rights around the world.

"But do not ye believe a word of it — says Cohen. — All presidential candidates, whether they are Democrats or Republicans claim the priority of human rights when he ran for president — but in a completely different act, getting to the office. "

Creator article gives the example of Bill Clinton which in 1992, criticized George W. Bush, who met with the "butchers of Beijing should" after the Tiananmen Square massacre. A few months later, Cohen notes, when Clinton was in a white house, he retreated from the "American values", giving China the status of more favorable trade.

Described in the paper and promises about "values" and then work in the name of "interest" to the presidency of Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Barack Obama as well. The policy of the latter, according to the creator, is a "mixed bag."

Obama has not closed the jail at Guantanamo Bay and "signed" by many of the political war — Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, for which the Democrats criticized his predecessor.

But Obama supporters, says Cohen, of course, can point to the US-led intervention in Libya — in support of the fight against insurgents Gaddafi, and efforts to remove Mubarak from power in January 2011. At the multilateral level, then the Obama administration was committed to reform and mobilized the UN to condemn human rights violations in Syria, Libya and Iran. But, on the other hand, says the creator of articles, white-washed house continues to retain its own main allies in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia and Bahrain on the basis of the cool calculation of U.S. interests. In the end, Cohen said, Obama's contribution is a pragmatic approach, where the United States could strengthen the rights of man, and "cancel" of this approach, where the policy of upholding American values can not be used, or where the interests of national security are estimated to be more fundamental.

That is why, Cohen concludes, the problem of American power and influence is manifested where there is a greater gap between rhetoric and action.

Yes, writes on the creator, Romney likes to attack the president for a certain timidity about democracy in Iran (we are talking about the events of 2009), but "not to be confused rhetoric with the possibility of Merit results." Romney says creator, "As president, not much he could do for democracy in Iran reincarnation of Jefferson."

Commenting on Cohen's article, we can say only one thing: the South American values have long been (well, and always have been) just a political cause to fight for the South American interests, and is not related to "national security." Examples of this are countless — from the former Yugoslavia to today's Syria, where the U.S. condone arming militants from various states and is funded and supported communication equipment "revolutionaries." In Bahrain, the often violated human rights, but the U.S. administration is in no hurry to get up there on the side of the serving of the opposition.

The U.S. position — the one and only, and none of the American political demagogues-highest rank in fact not "torn" between "values" and "interests." This position is most clearly was announced not long ago U.S. Secretary of State. Speaking at the Institute campus of Syracuse (State of New-york), Hillary Clinton expressed quite openly"Diplomacy in the energy sector is a critically important factor of our national security, and not just from the standpoint of pleasing the energy needs of the United States at an affordable price, but also from the standpoint of the role that energy plays in our relations with other regions of the world."

Specifically, because of that the U.S. is not in a hurry to take care of human rights in South Sudan, where apparently not without a hint of snow-white house on May 5've added to the map of the country's oil fields in Heglig relating generally to the territories of the northern neighbor — Sudan. After all, in both Sudan oil so much that it supplies associated with the proven supplies of Saudi Arabia.

No wonder more brutal fans of Uncle Sam came from the United States were in Russia nickname "oil."

Control over most of the energy of the planet will allow the U.S. to continue to maintain the role of global hegemon — the country's leader, has the right to teach the whole world, "American values" and the construction of "Jeffersonian democracy".

By the way, the value of world democracy can preach not necessarily those who are running for president of America. Also this magnanimous deed can be engaged and ex-presidents — without risk to his political career.

Not so long ago in "Wall Street Journal" released speech of George W. Bush, where amateur executions and torture tirelessly talking about the majestic democratic values that America has the world:

"Splendor one day, when the dictator overthrown or if it is inferior to the democracy movement. The years that the transition can be difficult … There (in Central Europe. — Charles O.) at times manifested corruption, is rolling in the past and the nostalgia for the communi
st era. The necessary economic reforms are at once painful and unpopular. To rekindle the flame of the revolution in the name of freedom, it is necessary to possess courage. But courage is required, and in order to carry out a revolution in the name of freedom through structural reforms. The courage of both types deserves our support. "

And here's another of Bush — here are just about America's role in the approval of values: "We, Americans, have put themselves ahead puzzle assist reformers to convert the demise of tyranny in strong, accountable to civilian structures. Emerging democracies require strong constitution, committed to pluralism, political parties and free elections … This work will claim the patience, creativity and active American leadership … If America does not support the promotion of democratic institutions and values, then who else will? "(Source of translation — "Inopressa").

But it seems that with the age of the main conductor of values in the world and part-hegemonic senile.

II. No values, no hegemon

Ian Bremmer, another founder of the magazine "Foreign Policy", in his own Article "Welcome to the new world disorder" states: "Unfortunately, for the first time in seven decades, the world is not enough favorite. Raising the federal debt in the United States, a very weak and uncertain exit of the country from recession stateliness, as the political paralysis in Washington have created apprehension about the fact that America is no longer able to play the role of leader of the post-war … "(source of translation — "Inosmi").

Bremmer believes that neither China nor our homeland, no major countries of Europe will not be able at this point to change the U.S. hegemony in the post. At all — difficult home prepyadstviya.

But the "vacuum alien nature." Who will lead the new world for themselves? China? Japan? Yet States? And maybe Brazil or Turkey?

Referring to the economist Fred Bergsten, and at the same time and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bremmer sees output in the formation of the "Big Two" — instead of "eight": the strategic partnership between the United States and China. It is interesting that the development of such a strong "two" China will have to abandon the military build-up: after all, it "diverts resources from work on rebalancing the economy, and the creation of a strong system of social security for an aging population. So Makar, China will have to rely on the military power of the U.S., which will protect and defend the interests of the public outside of Asia. And it will need such level of mutual trust, which has not yet been reached. U.S. economy will have to be sufficiently regain his energy and vitality to assure taxpayers that the United States can again carry out more ambitious foreign policy. South American legislators will have to make so that the rebalancing of the financial relations between the two countries-name obviously gives dignity to China, as it suzivaet wealth gap between the U.S. and China are not generated in the South American community hostility towards Beijing. But if you take all of the common danger in their totality (from North Korea and cyber attacks to oil prices), the security partnership can become a habit. "

Oh so clever! At a stroke, 2-hares ubivahom: China and the danger is gone, and the hegemony of the United States has remained. After all, the naked eye can see who is in party favorite — the one with the primacy of weapons. Who is stronger, he is right. "China will have to rely on the military power of the United States …"

Other countries and their unions recent "two" will not be necessary. They will not be able to compete with the United States and China. "In this scenario, the EU is waiting for a split or uncertain progress to the least busy future. The Japanese government will be unable to revive its economy, and new powers, such as India, Brazil, Turkey, and others will not be able to strengthen enough to play with observation and independent role on the world stage. In this scenario, the US-Chinese leadership will be invaluable. "

Bremmer is not as superficial as it may seem at first glance. Do not jump to conclusions.

For the creator here reports that the world of the "big two", if not impracticable, it is unlikely. And that — the mass of the circumstances: "First of all, there is no historical precedent for a strong and multi-dimensional partnership between with 2 most powerful countries in the world, especially when they have such different political and economic systems. If the course of events will not lead China to the base of political reform and not destroy the state of its dominance in the markets, these countries will in any case it is very difficult for a long time cooperate interests. Also, there is no guarantee that the Chinese control ever feel pretty confident, that country agreed to such a role. In recent years, many have called for a "Big Two", but the Chinese people in their midst there is no 1st. … It is highly unlikely that the United States and China will come out of this era with the latest confidence in themselves and in their own abilities, especially when you consider how China's ambitious reform plans, and is not protected as America's middle class. " In addition, says the creator, do not think that all the rest of the country will slide into the abyss of the crisis and lost.

"Concert of nations" in a new world, continues to Bremmer, too, is unlikely. The creator does not believe that in the face of the global crisis of the country, for example, in Europe, will merge in order to gain more than the feeble of failure. "But the temptation to find weaknesses in the benefits and shortcomings of others, instead of to merge and strengthen international trade can be a very powerful, and some people will not be able to withstand it."

Bremmer then draws the scenario of "Cold War 2.0", where the role of global enemies perform again as the U.S. and China. And this scenario nesbytochen, because "the US-China business based on a certain interdependence, or the concept of" mutually assured economic-destruction. " This will continue even in this case, if China successfully overcome their dependence on the possibility of purchasing the South American consumer. China will need the United States more long years to fund south american debt, and China needs to be convinced that America can and will pay its debts — and the currency to which it enjoys, is worth more than the paper on which it is printed. "

Because China and the United States will be in a relatively strong, almost friendly relations, mutually mindful of their own national defense interests and completely zapamyatyvaya of American values. China on the latter to keep in mind in general not necessary.

Russia Bremmer mentions only in the tail of the article (which, we note more not over) — In the context of talking about the "world regions" and BRICS. And slowly, paragraph by paragraph, the creator of a discouragement comes to the "Big Zero" — and instead of "eight" and "twenty" and "two" … without the usual scary hegemon, and, Mr. Bremmer?

III. "Big two" in the representation of Obama

And Bremmer and Cohen somehow lost sight of Russia: not that superstitious about her silent (God forbid breaks into the hegemonic!), Not found it next to China and Brazil underdeveloped. That's what the creators of the right, of course.

But here is one of the newest professionals in the matter of American values Mitt Romney believes that huge
oil and gas country's number one enemy of America, and possibly at night thinking about setting there "Jeffersonian democracy" (statements on the subject of his campaign has not yet received).

Richard Oppel of «New York Times» writes about the sensational statement about Romney's "geopolitical enemy" — Code: "Make a controversial statement Romney forced not only the judgments of political character, they say the people around him, and the" fears that Putin will develop political repression and take advantage of energy riches of their own country to fund military expansion. " As said on the criteria of anonymity Romney advisers, Our homeland "is a good illustration of his belief that the risk of national security is closely linked with economic power — in this case, arising out of the oil and gas reserves of Russia, which it uses to force action on the import-dependent energoelementov European countries … "(source of translation — "Inopressa").

That's where the horrors taking place in front of the South American Russia, obviously a labeling on the free position of world hegemony — for the kind of crisis the United States and held hands, and feet. They are silent about the same zeal of the Russian Federation South American journalists because they are afraid: other readers understand Inglish of the Russian Federation can realize their true and explain their words as a hint.

Maybe that's why, and growing in popularity in the U.S. election Mitt Romney is better to cool war (that we know what is over for the USSR), if that quixotic friendship that leads Obama and Medvedev then, that with Putin.

In general, there is also a perception that the cool days of the war took place. This outlook excludes the need of NATO — an alliance that for some reason after the collapse of the Soviet Union not only did not finish there, and expanded.

Michael Lynn of "Chicago Tribune" asks: "Is not no longer need at all for NATO?" After the initial goal of the alliance — containment of the Soviet Union — long since lost its topicality in 1991. However, the Alliance appeared brand new mission — after September 11, against the background of the "war on terror" declared Bush the Younger. But bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan in less than a hundred square meters of the members of "Al-Qaeda", the Taliban deposed. The U.S. and its NATO allies have all continue to wage war and are going to extend the deployment of troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Creator says about 10-thousand military framework of NATO in Afghanistan (below) and probable embezzlement of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. In Afghanistan, there is agreement on the presence of the U.S. military will be put to a vote in parliament, and in the United States is not subject to ratification in the Senate. Creator bitterly observes: "Guess which of these states — a strong democracy" (source of translation — "Inopressa").

On the background outlined above Sino-Brazilian-Turkish forecasts have not released a new forecast, but the behavior of Barack Obama in the political arena. Columnist Jackson Diehl of "Washington Post" does, for example, concluded that Obama's own foreign policy is not set on China, and Russia, and, more precisely, on Vladimir Putin (source of translation — "Inopressa"). However, the creator of the article is the behavior of its president is not pretty.

According Dilu, Obama may find Putin's one of the main partners in the international arena — in its own second term. But that's only the Russian president "refuses to play the role prepared for him." Mr. Putin did not go to the summit at Camp David — that's for you, Mr. Obama, and the refusal to cooperate, and "in a rude manner."

If Obama is going to sign a 2013 contract with Russia about the big cuts in nuclear arsenals, the "Putin at best, cool treat" to the idea. So says the South American journalist.

Meanwhile, Obama appeals to Putin, reports maker article differently: he congratulated him on his election victory, has also made the abolition of the Jackson — Vanik priority.

Journalist outraged: after the "Arab Spring" showed clearly that "dialogue" with autocrats is an unwise move — in this case, "if their power is waning."

The creator calls on Obama to again put on the agenda of day or human rights in Russia — in other words (we would add) to start with, where to start all of the candidates for president in the United States: a sermon real American values.

But after Obama — Snow White is no stranger to the house, as opposed to Mitt Romney, whose presidential management experience, but there is only an irrepressible thirst for political rhetoric.

Obama also has to ponder well — as opposed to various journalists, perhaps, piano play along in the 2nd row orchestra to Mr. Romney — what to write about the world of the future, ignoring the presence in it of, very little awkward. Perhaps supporters of Romney, by necessity based on American values, automatically excluded Russia from the list of candidates for the hegemon. In addition to the headquarters of Romney believe that Moscow will stand on its own oil only until 2014. What is really out of it hegemon? Even the enemy of something — only the election.

For Obama, who has made "an unwise move" to Putin appears to competitors, the Republicans wimp. Obama just spent in a white house three and a half years, knows very well that if our home and I will do the will of options, ie, crisis, global hegemon, the United States, forgetting the "interests" of the country and gone to the future by idealistic " American values, "just miss its position in world politics. In fact, specifically called for in the like Mitt Romney, and former President George W. Bush that the elections will be rooting for Romney.

Far fewer missiles, missiles, warships, nuclear weapons, lots of friendship with Russia and the rejection of complete monopoly on strange "values" — that's what will make you happy, gentlemen Americans. A feud no one has brought happiness.

Surveyed and translated Oleg Chuvakin
— Especially for

Like this post? Please share to your friends: