WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic
presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they
join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which
is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts
it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and
"restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe
Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled
and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of
significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob
Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything? That's France. In Germany,
Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy
retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the
decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm
visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on
Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that
France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely
with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are
very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking
disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in
Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are
taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for
example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous
Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with
Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations
that it had forsworn for the last half-century.
So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise
of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.
So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has
caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf
states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point
that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of
alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of
international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the
U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's
cultural elites. It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to
the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat.
Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter
of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to
deliver. What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction
remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency
strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost
cause to a winnable one. The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated
their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of
American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American
rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection.
This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as
their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis
that openly threatens them all. It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a
hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always
shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will
have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances
worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not
an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of
internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in
Iraq.
Source: Townhall.com
Balance of Power Returning to United States
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 16, 2007
Comments