 |
Paradox of United States
Lawsuits filed one after another during US presidential election has aroused widespread attention. In fact, what is more worthy of note is how would the United States act in the world after the general election.
With regard to this question, one can take for reference the many expositions on US national security strategy recently made by the outgoing President Bill Clinton through reports and speeches. A cursory analysis will show that the national security strategy decided by the United States is obviously a paradox.
Reports say, according to Clinton, the US national security strategy contains three major objectives: 1. Strengthening US security; 2. Enhancing US prosperity; and 3. Pushing forward domestic and overseas democracy and human rights. As an independent State, it is irreproachable for the United States to take security and prosperity as its own strategic goal of national security.
However, to include into its goal the democracy and human right situation of other countries is, in anyway, illogical. Because, obviously, "overseas democracy and human rights" purely belong to the internal affairs of other countries, and what relationship is there between the internal affairs of other countries and the security of the United States? This is one aspect of the paradox.
The second aspect of the paradox is the ideal of US "democracy". As everybody knows, democracy stands opposed to dictatorship, in ancient Greece, democracy referred to people's exercise of State power. When the meaning of this term is extended, then, in today's international relationship, democracy should mean that all countries, big and small, should be equal, world affairs should be discussed and handled by various countries together.
But, in fact, the "democracy" contained in the US national security strategy requires that other countries must accept and domestically implement the US-style social system and concept of value, while international affairs are decided by the United States. In that case, what sort of democracy is there!, that is a typical hegemonic logic.
US Presidential National Security Advisor Assistant Sandy Berger recently published a monograph, entitled "Foreign Policy in the Age of Globalization", about US national security strategy in the US magazine Foreign Affairs.
As one of US foreign policy makers, Berger's related expositions should be regarded as explanatory notes on US national security strategy. Berger said: The most fundamental issue is whether or not we can continue to keep US leading position in the world; today, the United States should, together with its democratic partners, establish an international system composed of a strong league and organization and must be ready to come forward to safeguard those standards (meaning US values) when they are facing threats.
These remarks of Berger, in simple and easy-to-understand language, mean that the United States must establish a large unified world under its domination, only by wrapping the entire world in star-spangled banner, can the United States have a sense of security.
Recently, in the article entitled "Inheriting the Network of the Dissatisfied", the UPI chief executive Arnaud de Borchgrave, lamented: In their rivalry with the ubiquitous and omnipotent United States, more and more State leaders have begun to put themselves in the status as the opposition factions. Among the dissatisfied countries enumerated by Borchgrave, in addition to Russia, China and a large string of developing countries, there are also France and several other EU member states, adding that they have formed a network in the world.
Why is it that the United States is surrounded by the "dissatisfied" in the world. Although Borchgrave said nothing about this, the bystanders are always clear-minded, they know that is because the United States, who dubs itself as ubiquitous and omnipotent, requires that all countries follow its lead. This fact should remind Clinton's successor that he should have a world view about how to decide on US national security strategy.
In This Section
|