|
Oh boy, this world really needs something to control all of its bad instincts. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the U.S. exerted too much control. From Budapest I haven’t the faintest idea if Iran potentially threatens other countries at all. But I am sure that the nuclear threat is a very imperfect weapon against war. The U.S. cannot use its military to be the peace-makers of the world.
Over the past century America’s image followed the curve of a sine wave. At the beginning of the period feelings toward the U.S. were moderately positive, and the most common adjectives used were synonyms of “rich” and “good.” Before World War I the general image was the United Steaks of America, a country of unlimited food and fortune.
The Current Discussion: In their campaign, should Barack Obama and running mate Joseph Biden advocate a clean break in U.S. foreign policy, or should they rely on continuity and experience?
I am living in the navel of Europe, in a small (tiny?) country. Its foreign policy has seldom had any effect or impact on the powers and tendencies of the world. The world, that is, the Great Seven have never given a damn about whether Hungary's foreign policy is characterized by continuity and experience, or a clean break. So, how to answer this question?
Still, using my imagination and common sense, I have my own answer, but no guarantee to go with it. If I were the candidate, and, then, the next President of the United States, I would utterly feel the responsibility of that office, probably the one with the biggest influence and power in the world. And, I would cope with the fact that even this huge influence and power would not make me omnipotent. Consequently, I would recognize that I am unable to solve the problems of other countries--having serious troubles in solving the problems of even my own country. Thus, I would focus on the United States of America, and forget about the U.S. foreign policy as such for awhile. That means I would order all the US troops to come home immediately.
The Current Discussion: Does the crisis on Wall Street mean that the American style of capitalism is no longer the model for the world?
Here in Hungary, modern capitalism began in 1990. An earlier capitalist period in the early 20th century ended when the Soviet Union forcibly introduced socialism.
American-style capitalism was not a useful model during that first period; what we had was closer to slightly industrialized feudalism. After all, America was really far away, across a continent and then an ocean; how could we aspire to its ideals? When the modern period began the American style was no model, either; the country was too poor to even hope to achieve a similar kind of success. Now, believe it or not, the gap between our two economic system is even wider.
For small banks in other parts of the world, news of Wall Street companies in crisis inspires more of a feeling of gloating. Small banks and other financial institutions live in a permanent danger of insolvency or bankruptcy; to see the big ones in trouble is a comforting sensation.
It's not the American model of capitalism that we envy here; it's American democracy. That's the model to which our young and fragile democracy should aspire.
The Current Discussion: Will the U.S. financial crisis lead to an erosion of U.S. influence comparable to the Iraq war?
Ever since the U.S. won the cold war, its influence has been soaking in the lukewarm water of erosion. This giant country (or rather its leadership) has not done anything since 1990 that could improve its "influence," in any sense of the word. From this point of view, the victory over the extinct Soviet Union was bloodier than anybody noticed. Before, you could always justify your actions with the threat of another superpower. Not so anymore - the U.S. has no such justification. So, smaller countries of the world feel a little compassion for the 'poor' United States.
Actually, the financial crisis makes the American superpower look more human. Earlier, its limitless economic and military power and even its size was simply frightening. When we can observe the giant bleeding, we experience a number of feelings:
1. Schadenfreude (gloating) and satisfaction.
2. Threat. If even the giant is so vulnerable, we may bleed much more soon.
3. Anger. Why can't the U.S. leadership solve this crisis? Why can't they see that it is really dangerous for the whole world?
All in all, the impotence of American economic and political leaders will certainly lead to an erosion of the U.S. influence. That erosion is not comparable to the one caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - because it will be even faster, and even stronger.
The Current Discussion: What's the first thing you hope Barack Obama does as President-Elect?
I hope that President-elect Barack Obama shakes the hand of John McCain - and that he does so sincerely.
The Current Discussion: Rate Obama's first performance on the international stage on a scale of 1-10, and tell us why you think so.
Let's talk a bit about the G-20 meeting (London, England), where, seemingly, President Obama has been the protagonist. The best I can tell about the meeting is that although the Bobbies arrested 111 protesters, none of them was seriously hurt.
Similarly, the best news on the noted meeting is that it appears it won't harm the world economy. Probably the leader and administration (or government) of each participating country would take the same action to resuscitate the economy and financial institutions that they would have without any meeting at all.
As to President Obama, he's a fluid, gifted speaker and tells his fellow Presidents and Prime Ministers whatever they would like to hear. That is why he seems to be successful on the international stage so far. So far, so good. Eight points. Or even nine.
Let's ask the question again in about six months and see how the answers change.
Comments (3)