'A NEW COURSE'
[Het Parool, The Netherlands]
La Stampa, Italy
Obama Must Finish
Mr. Bush's Work or 'Marginalize' the West
"He
cannot abandon Afghanistan; he cannot help but engage in a tug of war with
Iran; he cannot but consolidate U.S. influence in Iraq … as we said, the West
is going to be a minority. It’s important that being a minority doesn't also
end up meaning marginalization."
By Lucia Annunziata
Translated By Enrico
Del Sero
December 3, 2009
Italy - La Stampa - Original Article
(Italian)
To understand Obama’s
decision on Afghanistan, it’s worth going over some numbers. In 2000, Western
countries alone produced 55 percent of world’s wealth, whereas by 2025, they
will produce 40 percent. At that time, Asia will produce 38 percent, compared
to the current 24. Essentially, it’s a draw. Demographically, the relationship
between West and East can be told in even more spectacular terms: by 2025, the
population of America and Europe will make up 9 percent of the world's
population (in the nineteenth century, at the height of its influence, Europe
alone represented 22 percent, which is what the population of China represents
today), while the whole of Asia will host 50 percent of world citizens. That is
to say: in fifteen years, one of every two people in the world will be Asian.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Reading this numbers, taken
from a study by the influential Notre Europe Foundation
which is now chaired by former Treasury Minister Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa,
there’s only one question to be answered: will or won't the U.S. and Europe
fully engage in the hard work of war in Afghanistan? The link between that
conflict and the rapid redefinition of global power relations may not be
apparent, but it's fundamental.
The Afghan war wasn't launched
by the current American president, and certainly when it was launched by former
President Bush, it was done so in the context of the September 11 attacks on
the U.S. But ever since, it has become obscured amid Washington’s other Asian
priorities, particularly by China. Given the rapid growth in that part of the
world, the United States has found itself devoid of effective means of
intervention, a watershed that has occurred at the divide between one century
and another.
NATO, the main structure of
Western governments for almost half a century, was built with the Soviet Cold
War threat in mind. Alliances in the Middle East - a mixed basket of Israel
plus a small group of moderate Arab states - were set up with the idea that
Washington could act in that region by remote control. That is, by pulling strings
from afar thanks to the many levers of economic aid, hidden intervention, oil
and lobbying - a diplomatic and military scheme that America has applied in
many of the world's regions, all more or less classified as "developing."
Old instruments, then, for an
outdated vision of the world. While in the West, staring at the remains of the [Berlin]
Wall, we toyed with the notion of the "End of History," the ancient mole
had already re-emerged elsewhere. Without going into too much detail, as this
is now common knowledge, globalization has expanded the wealth of countries
that until recently were “developing,” and has initiated a reversal that in
little more than 20 years has transformed power relations between countries.
China, as we know, with its great leap toward capitalism, is one of the engines
of globalization - and as we now know it dragged the whole of Asia along with
it. The questions posed by such growth have definitively increased the pressure
on the energy sources, purchasing power and manufacturing supremacy of the
West. In this sense, the terrorist attacks against us that began in 2001 weren't
the beginning of the wars now underway, but were the product and representation
of the potentially seismic shift embodied by this change in power relations. This
too, we know.
What we as Westerners have
not quite understood for at least a decade is how to address the demands of
these new powers. Bush, after the emergency of 2001, had an idea. Questionable perhaps,
but it was certainly an idea: to advance the front of America's presence. And
to do so literally - that is, through invasions, to create new strongholds of America's
presence, planted directly at the heart of these new power balances. Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan, which the U.S. controls directly or indirectly, plus a
solid alliance with India, forms, if we look at it on the map, a long strip of
direct lines of defense. A sort of belt of Gibaud that embraces the oil
countries, friendly and unfriendly, but that also serves as containment under
the belly of the Caucasus and China.
Bush’ wars have been harshly
criticized, and have certainly been revealed as less effective and quick than the
president had promised. But the idea of the "containing" Asia and particularly
China is certainly now the number one item on the global agenda. Containment in
the sense of an expansion of influence, but also, and especially for the moment,
access to sources of energy. For ten years now, this has provided fresh
potential for global conflict.
Obama has not only inherited
this - he may even be crushed by it: in effect, the role that China has had -
and may have - in the U.S. economic crisis, is the real Achilles ' heel of the
American president.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
To be sure, Obama is not Bush.
He doesn’t believe in war as the sole and final solution. He came to power
promising respect and equality in relations between nations. He pledged to do so
by using all the tools we already know of, and perhaps by inventing some new
ones: bilateral relations, expanding international organizations, dialogue
among cultures. But his negotiating position cannot but express itself through
the reaffirmation of his nation's military might as well.
This is why he cannot abandon
Afghanistan; why he cannot help but engage in a tug of war with Iran; why he
cannot but consolidate U.S. influence in Iraq - in short, why he cannot but
finish the work that Bush began. In the world, as we said, the West is going to
be a minority. It’s important - and this also applies to Europe - that being a
minority doesn't also end up meaning marginalization.
SEE ALSO ON THIS:
Berliner Zeitung, Germany:
Obama's Hope is All
Afghanistan Has Left
Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russia:
NATO Still 'Clueless' About What to Do Next
Le Monde, France:
Nicolas Sarkozy's 'Neither-Nor' on the Afghan Surge
Liberation, France:
Obama's Hesitation on Afghanistan May Cost Him Dearly
The Nation, Pakistan :
Obama's Speech:
'Servility' Toward
U.S. Has its Limits
The Nation, Pakistan :
Pakistan Can't Allow
U.S. Surge Along
Afghan Border
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
U.S. Swallows India's 'Lies' on Kashmir
The Nation, Pakistan:
Hillary's 'Unfortunate' PR Stunt Falls Flat
The Nation, Pakistan:
Hillary Clinton Should Mind Her Own Media!
Pak Tribune, Pakistan:
In Waziristan, Americans Must Now Stand Aside
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
'Rivers of Blood:' West Could Care Less for Afghan Deaths
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
Tell America to Stop Backing Terrorist Attacks on Iran
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
America Reveals Dark Side of the Human Intellect
The Australian, Australia:
Before 9-11, Docs
Show Split in al-Qaeda
Over Attack on U.S.
Asia Times, Hong Kong:
China Maps
End to the Afghanistan War
The Telegraph, U.K.:
Obama Reported
'Furious' at McChrystal
Speech
Gazeta, Russia:
U.S. and Russia Share Responsibility for 'Afghan Anthill'
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
Americans Will Pay Dearly For 'Flirting' with Afghan War
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
This Time, the Americans Have Gone Too Far!
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
It's Obama's Afghanistan Now
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US, Dec. 7, 12:40pm
