Page 42 - Shahrvand BC No.1225
P. 42
English Section
losses?" year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the concern about, because it may Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the 421391 نمهب20 جمعه- 1225 شماره/ سال متسیب
On the other hand, the capacity to main establishment journal. Its big undermine you. In fact, it's a little dock facing criminal charges and
preserve control has sharply declined. front-page cover asks, in bold face, paradoxical, because traditionally prosecution. It's inconceivable In touch with Iranian diversity 42
By 1970, the world was already what "Is America Over?" It's a standard the United States and Britain have that US leaders will ever be held
was called tripolar economically, complaint of those who believe by and large strongly supported to account for their crimes in Iraq Vol. 20 / No. 1225 - Friday, Feb. 8, 2013
with a US-based North American they should have everything. If you radical Islamic fundamentalism, not or beyond. Is that going to change
industrial centre, a German-based believe you should have everything political Islam, as a force to block anytime soon?
European centre, roughly comparable and anything gets away from you, it's secular nationalism, the real concern. That's basically the Yglesias
in size, and a Japan-based east Asian a tragedy, and the world is collapsing. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the principle: the very foundation of the
centre, which was then the most So is America over? A long time ago most extreme fundamentalist state international order is that the United
dynamic growth region in the world. we "lost" China, we've lost southeast in the world, a radical Islamic state. States has the right to use violence
Since then, the global economic order Asia, we've lost South America. It has missionary zeal, is spreading at will. So how can you charge
has become much more diverse. So Maybe we'll lose the Middle East and radical Islam to Pakistan and funding anybody?
it's harder to carry out our policies, north African countries. Is America terror. But it's the bastion of US and
but the underlying principles have not over? It's a kind of paranoia, but it's British policy. They've consistently And no one else has that right?
changed much. the paranoia of the super-rich and supported it against the threat of Of course not. Well, maybe our
Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton the super-powerful. If you don't have secular nationalism from Gamal clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon
doctrine was that the United States everything, it's a disaster. Abdel Nasser's Egypt and Abd al- and kills 1,000 people and destroys
was entitled to resort to unilateral Karim Qasim's Iraq, among many half the country, OK, that's all right.
force to ensure "uninhibited access The New York Times describes others. But they don't like political It's interesting. Barack Obama was a
to key markets, energy supplies the "defining policy quandary Islam because it may become senator before he was president. He
and strategic resources". That goes of the Arab spring as how to independent. didn't do much as a senator, but he
beyond anything that George W Bush square contradictory US impulses, The first of the three points, our did a couple of things, including one
said. But it was quiet and it wasn't including support for democratic yearning for democracy, that's about he was particularly proud of. In fact,
arrogant and abrasive, so it didn't change, a desire for stability, and on the level of Joseph Stalin talking if you looked at his website before
cause much of an uproar. The belief wariness of Islamists who have about the Russian commitment to the primaries, he highlighted the fact
in that entitlement continues right become a potent political force". freedom, democracy and liberty for that, during the Israeli invasion of
to the present. It's also part of the The Times identifies three US the world. It's the kind of statement Lebanon in 2006, he co-sponsored a
intellectual culture. goals. What do you make of them? you laugh about when you hear it Senate resolution demanding that the
Right after the assassination of Osama Two of them are accurate. The United from commissars or Iranian clerics, United States do nothing to impede
bin Laden, amid all the cheers and States is in favour of stability. But but you nod politely, and maybe even Israel's military actions until they
applause, there were a few critical you have to remember what stability with awe, when you hear it from their had achieved their objectives, and
comments questioning the legality of means. Stability means conformity to western counterparts. censuring Iran and Syria because they
the act. Centuries ago, there used to US orders. So, for example, one of the If you look at the record, the yearning were supporting resistance to Israel's
be something called presumption of charges against Iran, the big foreign for democracy is a bad joke. That's destruction of southern Lebanon,
innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, policy threat, is that it is destabilising even recognised by leading scholars, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25
he's a suspect until proven guilty. He Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By though they don't put it this way. One years. So they inherit the right. Other
should be brought to trial. It's a core trying to expand its influence into of the major scholars on so-called clients do, too.
part of American law. You can trace it neighbouring countries. On the other democracy promotion is Thomas But the rights really reside in
back to Magna Carta. So there were hand, we "stabilise" countries when Carothers, who is pretty conservative Washington. That's what it means
a couple of voices saying maybe we we invade them and destroy them. and highly regarded – a neo- to own the world. It's like the air
shouldn't throw out the whole basis of I've occasionally quoted one of my Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He you breathe. You can't question it.
Anglo-American law. That led to a lot favourite illustrations of this, which worked in Reagan's state department The main founder of contemporary
of very angry and infuriated reactions, is from a well-known, very good and has several books reviewing the IR [international relations] theory,
but the most interesting ones were, as liberal foreign policy analyst, James course of democracy promotion, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite
usual, on the left-liberal end of the Chace, a former editor of Foreign which he takes very seriously. He a decent person, one of the very few
spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well- Affairs. Writing about the overthrow says, yes, this is a deep-seated political scientists and international
known and highly respected left- of the Salvador Allende regime and American ideal, but it has a funny affairs specialists to criticise the
liberal commentator, wrote an article the imposition of the dictatorship of history. The history is that every US Vietnam war on moral, not tactical,
in which he ridiculed these views. He Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said administration is "schizophrenic". grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book
said they were "amazingly naive" and that we had to "destabilise" Chile They support democracy only if it called The Purpose of American
silly. Then he explained the reason. in the interests of "stability". That's conforms to certain strategic and Politics. You already know what's
He said: "One of the main functions not perceived to be a contradiction economic interests. He describes this coming. Other countries don't have
of the international institutional – and it isn't. We had to destroy the as a strange pathology, as if the United purposes. The purpose of America,
order is precisely to legitimate the parliamentary system in order to gain States needed psychiatric treatment or on the other hand, is "transcendent"
use of deadly military force by stability, meaning that they do what something. Of course, there's another – to bring freedom and justice to
western powers." Of course, he didn't we say. So yes, we are in favour of interpretation, but one that can't come the rest of the world. But he's a
mean Norway. He meant the United stability in this technical sense. to mind if you're a well-educated, good scholar, like Carothers. So he
States. So the principle on which Concern about political Islam is just properly behaved intellectual. went through the records. He said
the international system is based is like concern about any independent that, when you studied the record, it
that the US is entitled to use force at development. Anything that's Within several months of the looked as if the United States hadn't
will. To talk about the US violating independent you have to have toppling of [President Hosni] lived up to its transcendent purpose.
international law or something like But then he says that to criticise
that is amazingly naive, completely our transcendent purpose "is to fall
silly. Incidentally, I was the target into the error of atheism, which
of those remarks, and I'm happy denies the validity of religion on
to confess my guilt. I do think that similar grounds" – which is a good
Magna Carta and international law comparison. It's a deeply entrenched
are worth paying some attention to. religious belief. It's so deep that it's
I merely mention that to illustrate going to be hard to disentangle it.
that, in the intellectual culture, even And if anyone questions that, it leads
at what's called the left-liberal end to near-hysteria and often to charges
of the political spectrum, the core of anti-Americanism or "hating
principles haven't changed very America" – interesting concepts that
much. But the capacity to implement don't exist in democratic societies,
them has been sharply reduced. only in totalitarian societies and
That's why you get all this talk about here, where they're just taken for
American decline. Take a look at the granted.
losses?" year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the concern about, because it may Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the 421391 نمهب20 جمعه- 1225 شماره/ سال متسیب
On the other hand, the capacity to main establishment journal. Its big undermine you. In fact, it's a little dock facing criminal charges and
preserve control has sharply declined. front-page cover asks, in bold face, paradoxical, because traditionally prosecution. It's inconceivable In touch with Iranian diversity 42
By 1970, the world was already what "Is America Over?" It's a standard the United States and Britain have that US leaders will ever be held
was called tripolar economically, complaint of those who believe by and large strongly supported to account for their crimes in Iraq Vol. 20 / No. 1225 - Friday, Feb. 8, 2013
with a US-based North American they should have everything. If you radical Islamic fundamentalism, not or beyond. Is that going to change
industrial centre, a German-based believe you should have everything political Islam, as a force to block anytime soon?
European centre, roughly comparable and anything gets away from you, it's secular nationalism, the real concern. That's basically the Yglesias
in size, and a Japan-based east Asian a tragedy, and the world is collapsing. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the principle: the very foundation of the
centre, which was then the most So is America over? A long time ago most extreme fundamentalist state international order is that the United
dynamic growth region in the world. we "lost" China, we've lost southeast in the world, a radical Islamic state. States has the right to use violence
Since then, the global economic order Asia, we've lost South America. It has missionary zeal, is spreading at will. So how can you charge
has become much more diverse. So Maybe we'll lose the Middle East and radical Islam to Pakistan and funding anybody?
it's harder to carry out our policies, north African countries. Is America terror. But it's the bastion of US and
but the underlying principles have not over? It's a kind of paranoia, but it's British policy. They've consistently And no one else has that right?
changed much. the paranoia of the super-rich and supported it against the threat of Of course not. Well, maybe our
Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton the super-powerful. If you don't have secular nationalism from Gamal clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon
doctrine was that the United States everything, it's a disaster. Abdel Nasser's Egypt and Abd al- and kills 1,000 people and destroys
was entitled to resort to unilateral Karim Qasim's Iraq, among many half the country, OK, that's all right.
force to ensure "uninhibited access The New York Times describes others. But they don't like political It's interesting. Barack Obama was a
to key markets, energy supplies the "defining policy quandary Islam because it may become senator before he was president. He
and strategic resources". That goes of the Arab spring as how to independent. didn't do much as a senator, but he
beyond anything that George W Bush square contradictory US impulses, The first of the three points, our did a couple of things, including one
said. But it was quiet and it wasn't including support for democratic yearning for democracy, that's about he was particularly proud of. In fact,
arrogant and abrasive, so it didn't change, a desire for stability, and on the level of Joseph Stalin talking if you looked at his website before
cause much of an uproar. The belief wariness of Islamists who have about the Russian commitment to the primaries, he highlighted the fact
in that entitlement continues right become a potent political force". freedom, democracy and liberty for that, during the Israeli invasion of
to the present. It's also part of the The Times identifies three US the world. It's the kind of statement Lebanon in 2006, he co-sponsored a
intellectual culture. goals. What do you make of them? you laugh about when you hear it Senate resolution demanding that the
Right after the assassination of Osama Two of them are accurate. The United from commissars or Iranian clerics, United States do nothing to impede
bin Laden, amid all the cheers and States is in favour of stability. But but you nod politely, and maybe even Israel's military actions until they
applause, there were a few critical you have to remember what stability with awe, when you hear it from their had achieved their objectives, and
comments questioning the legality of means. Stability means conformity to western counterparts. censuring Iran and Syria because they
the act. Centuries ago, there used to US orders. So, for example, one of the If you look at the record, the yearning were supporting resistance to Israel's
be something called presumption of charges against Iran, the big foreign for democracy is a bad joke. That's destruction of southern Lebanon,
innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, policy threat, is that it is destabilising even recognised by leading scholars, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25
he's a suspect until proven guilty. He Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By though they don't put it this way. One years. So they inherit the right. Other
should be brought to trial. It's a core trying to expand its influence into of the major scholars on so-called clients do, too.
part of American law. You can trace it neighbouring countries. On the other democracy promotion is Thomas But the rights really reside in
back to Magna Carta. So there were hand, we "stabilise" countries when Carothers, who is pretty conservative Washington. That's what it means
a couple of voices saying maybe we we invade them and destroy them. and highly regarded – a neo- to own the world. It's like the air
shouldn't throw out the whole basis of I've occasionally quoted one of my Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He you breathe. You can't question it.
Anglo-American law. That led to a lot favourite illustrations of this, which worked in Reagan's state department The main founder of contemporary
of very angry and infuriated reactions, is from a well-known, very good and has several books reviewing the IR [international relations] theory,
but the most interesting ones were, as liberal foreign policy analyst, James course of democracy promotion, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite
usual, on the left-liberal end of the Chace, a former editor of Foreign which he takes very seriously. He a decent person, one of the very few
spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well- Affairs. Writing about the overthrow says, yes, this is a deep-seated political scientists and international
known and highly respected left- of the Salvador Allende regime and American ideal, but it has a funny affairs specialists to criticise the
liberal commentator, wrote an article the imposition of the dictatorship of history. The history is that every US Vietnam war on moral, not tactical,
in which he ridiculed these views. He Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said administration is "schizophrenic". grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book
said they were "amazingly naive" and that we had to "destabilise" Chile They support democracy only if it called The Purpose of American
silly. Then he explained the reason. in the interests of "stability". That's conforms to certain strategic and Politics. You already know what's
He said: "One of the main functions not perceived to be a contradiction economic interests. He describes this coming. Other countries don't have
of the international institutional – and it isn't. We had to destroy the as a strange pathology, as if the United purposes. The purpose of America,
order is precisely to legitimate the parliamentary system in order to gain States needed psychiatric treatment or on the other hand, is "transcendent"
use of deadly military force by stability, meaning that they do what something. Of course, there's another – to bring freedom and justice to
western powers." Of course, he didn't we say. So yes, we are in favour of interpretation, but one that can't come the rest of the world. But he's a
mean Norway. He meant the United stability in this technical sense. to mind if you're a well-educated, good scholar, like Carothers. So he
States. So the principle on which Concern about political Islam is just properly behaved intellectual. went through the records. He said
the international system is based is like concern about any independent that, when you studied the record, it
that the US is entitled to use force at development. Anything that's Within several months of the looked as if the United States hadn't
will. To talk about the US violating independent you have to have toppling of [President Hosni] lived up to its transcendent purpose.
international law or something like But then he says that to criticise
that is amazingly naive, completely our transcendent purpose "is to fall
silly. Incidentally, I was the target into the error of atheism, which
of those remarks, and I'm happy denies the validity of religion on
to confess my guilt. I do think that similar grounds" – which is a good
Magna Carta and international law comparison. It's a deeply entrenched
are worth paying some attention to. religious belief. It's so deep that it's
I merely mention that to illustrate going to be hard to disentangle it.
that, in the intellectual culture, even And if anyone questions that, it leads
at what's called the left-liberal end to near-hysteria and often to charges
of the political spectrum, the core of anti-Americanism or "hating
principles haven't changed very America" – interesting concepts that
much. But the capacity to implement don't exist in democratic societies,
them has been sharply reduced. only in totalitarian societies and
That's why you get all this talk about here, where they're just taken for
American decline. Take a look at the granted.
