Britannia Radio

About A Yet Undelivered Presidential Address

From the desk of George Handlery on Mon, 2011-09-12 10:11

Sovereignty, security, and their protection by the UN.

1. Duly Noted must begin with a surreal suggestion. The very fact that it can be stated and that the reader might, after reflection, find the “surreal suggestion” realistic, tells much about current condition of America. About that condition, an introductory comment is needed: The distress of the US does not have its origins in society, its order, or its will to perform. The political system and its management by its insiders are largely responsible for the fix. The “American” is responsible only to the extent that he is inclined to be enticed by chimeras. Therefore, he runs the risk of giving power to those that are unable to use it constructively.

To get a handle on the crisis of the economy Obama needs to restore the shaken faith whose lack feeds the crisis. To create confidence and to appear to be credible, the President must appear in a non-partisan role. Being above politics would give him personal standing and drum up trust for whatever measures he might propose. To achieve this Obama, who is not a bête noir of the writer, needs to devote his next speech to the ways of how the water can be bailed out of the sinking ship. The gist of the opening sentence of that address should be ”In the interest of overcoming the challenge that faces us a nation, I will not seek reelection”.

2. Peking has a record. One component is that it is not moderating the mercurial and aggressive behavior of North Korea. This is a notable posture for a power that regards itself as paramount in its neighborhood and for one that wishes to act as a guarantor of the security and of orderly procedures in her region.

China’s indulgence for Pyongyang’s adventurism that comes spiced with nuclear threats is not a consequence of lacking influence. If misbehavior makes the PRC turn off the spigot then checkmated Baby Kim, elevator shoes included, is cut back to size. Yes, North Korea is a useful proxy and her tantrums might be of tactical value to China. Kim’s outbursts create turbulances that make other countries seek her good offices to mediate. The upshot bolsters Peking’s pursued pre eminence in South East Asia. Furthermore, the uncertainties created also shake and confuse potential competitors. However, these all prove to be secondary considerations. Decisive is that, in the final analysis, Peking is aware that its system and that of Pyongyang are related.

In general terms, the support of friends and of those with whom political genes are shared, might demonstrate consistence and reliability. Such steadfastness can also entice to make costly mistakes. The support of Gaddafi on his way to the last stand in the last bunker reveals what is meant.

3. A considerable number of countries, not all of them small and inherently weak enough to be indefensible, share a characteristic. Relative to their potential they like to leave underdeveloped the means by which they can protect their interests and defend their existence. After the lessons of the last world war, this appears to be surprising. In that era, some weak systems hoped that their studied and advertised lack of military insignificance would shield them. They hoped strong neighbors would see their essentially unilateral disarmament as an indication that they mean no harm. Such countries were quickly overrun. That was because even if we prefer to forget, aggressors are not provoked by the risks that emanate from armed neighbors but by the weakness of the prey. In the same period of crisis, some small states that were determined to maintain themselves escaped the lot of the ones whose first line of defense was to appear unconditionally harmless. Another lesson that is swept under the rug is that it is too late to develop the instruments that can fend off the peril when the tiger already pounces upon you. Nowadays, there is no undeniable danger lurking in the bushes. Additionally, the dangers that are building up can be ignored or discounted by “PC-Think”. Therefore, it is easy to deny the need for protection –whether that is political or military.

Currently, the apostles of inaction are, if warned of the price to be paid should their theory fail, inclined to vest their hope for protection in the mechanisms of the United Nations’ system. Indeed, as a reaction to the world war’s experience, the UN is meant to be a guarantor of the member states’ integrity. However, especially in that role, the UN does not have a convincing record. The performance would be worse if there would not have been outside of the UN a number of mutual protection alliances lead by a superpower. These were pledged to provide for the collective defense of their members relying on very traditional means.

Regarding this role of making the world and its small countries safe from unopposed aggression, the UN presents disturbing signals to the observer. In the daily operation of the world organization, it is difficult to persuade some UN-members to condemn governments that massacre their own people. This is especially the case when these show enough resolution to indicate that words will not bring them back on the path of virtue.

An example is Syria. On the fourth of August, she has been put on the agenda for symbolic verbal censure by the world organization. A number of major countries -notably all are rated as “up and coming movers” of world affairs- were reluctant to let the UN send out smoke signals of disapproval. Revealingly, the cabal of the reluctant has not seriously doubted that a government that formally represents its machine-gunned subjects on the East River is perpetrating mass murder. Inconsistency might be suspected since the facts were not doubted and that, nevertheless, the appropriate action was prevented. There is a way to explain what appears to be a contradiction between the acknowledged situation and the response it elicited.

Saying “no” makes sense for Russia, China, India, Brazil and the moral great power, South Africa. Inaction has a logical basis if one assumes that one day some of these powers might find themselves forced to imitate Baghdad’s method of ensuring the submission of their reluctant masses. In one of my languages, there is a proverb. It alleges that crows do not gouge out the eyes of other crows. International relations confirm the rule. Regarding security, this implies that, ultimately, a community’s integrity is guaranteed largely by the efficacy of its own means.