|
LOS ANGELES --- It's one thing to be the big muscle in your neighborhood.
It's another to be the local bully.
What we all
have to accept is the geopolitical reality of our current unipolar
world, asserts the lead essay in the summer issue of Foreign
Affairs, the preeminent U.S. establishment journal. The political
world these days has but a north pole -- only. And this dramatically
unidimensional structure of the global magnetic field is not going
to be altered any time soon.
Conclude Dartmouth
government professors Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth:
If today's American primacy does not constitute unipolarity,
then nothing ever will. The only things left for dispute are how
long it will last and what the implications are for American foreign
policy. So how is Washington doing, from the perspective of
the rest of the world?
Let's look at
the recent record.
Last week the
Bush administration in effect suggested that the Palestinians dump
Yasser Arafat if they desire U.S. backing for an independent state.
That went over in the Arab world like the proverbial lead balloon.
Who likes being told by outsiders whom to vote for? Even those critical
of the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization felt
compelled, against better instincts, to come to his support.
Similarly last
week, the U.S. consulate in Hong Kong chastised the Special Administrative
Region government for refusing to permit anti-Beijing exile Harry
Wu to enter its territory. In 1997 Hong Kong became a semi-autonomous
subdivision of mainland China in the historic hand-over from London
to Beijing; July 1 of this year is the fifth anniversary of that
event. Some anniversary: Many Asians may well agree with the U.S.
view, albeit with the savvy realization that Wu is useful to the
United States as an anti-Communist icon and that his nonprofit,
the U.S.-based China Information Centre, benefits from U.S. State
Dept. funding. At the same time, though, Asians might agree that
the Hong Kong government be able to make an extremely sensitive
decision without a public scolding from America. Even some Wu backers
in Hong Kong had to shudder over the U.S. tactic. It's easy for
Washington to say what Hong Kong should do -- a convenient 6,000
miles away from Beijing, that giant to the north.
Recall a comparably
infamous, putatively high-minded scolding -- the one by Al Gore
while in Malaysia in 1998. The vice president, formally addressing
an APEC summit, delivered some choice negative words about Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who had recently jailed his main political
challenger on what seemed like trumped-up charges.
Prior to that
public Gore-ing, many Asian leaders had been upset with Mahathir,
too. But to criticize the Malaysian prime minister in Kuala Lumpur
struck many as unseemly and arrogant. As Malaysia's parliamentary
opposition leader put it at the time, There is a feeling of
national embarrassment that a foreign leader should be talking about
the need for democratic change in Malaysia on our own soil, although
he may be stating the truth.
So we must forgive
Asia today if it is amused by the current near-love-in between Washington
and Mahathir, who last week announced his impending retirement even
as the Bush administration has been praising his tough anti-terrorism
stance.
Papa don't preach,
croons the well-known Madonna song. But do we ever!
So where is
the proper balance between a responsible global leadership and a
loose-lipped arrogance of power? As Brooks and Wohlforth put it,
Some unease among other countries is inevitable no matter
what Washington does. And, of course, nothing elicits envy
more than success. At the same time, America wields such a big stick
that it not only must talk softly, but at times display enough statesmanship
to remain speechless. How to calibrate that fine line?
It's not easy.
Indeed, no recent U.S. government has ever found exactly the right
line to take. But that difficult journey -- of many thousands of
miles -- can begin with the first diplomatic baby steps. Telling
a foreign people who should be their leader and criticizing a foreign
government for a politically sensitive decision are steps in the
wrong direction. Watch out, Washington, because before too long,
the manifestly unipolar can, alas, transform into the manifestly
uni-unpopular. When you are as powerful as the United States, it
is not that hard to go wrong even when you are essentially right.
|