It seems that The Agonist has picked up on my previous post on Georgia and Abkhazia and dished out a little disagreement:
[...] Louis would have done well to heed the benefits of peace, the usefulness of ceasefires and the maintanence of the status quo, as those were the only things keeping him in power and France great.As well, Chirol would do well to heed the good Colonel’s words. Ideas, seductive and transient as they are, aren’t worth much when order and stability have fled.
Indeed, one can easily cherry pick examples of rulers who bit off more than they could chew. Germany’s Wilhelm II would have done well to follow Bismarck’s example but wanted more. Tony Montana’s downfall was his catch phrase “the world is yours.” Yet, too many people choose to dangerously overvalue the status quo. In a letter to Valentine Chirol in 1903, Lord Curzon wrote:
[...] never talk about preserving the status quo. It is the signpost of ignorance and the synonym for inaction. What we want everywhere all the world over is a policy. At present we are the greatest opportunists in creation. We wait for whatever may turn up and think that statesmanship: we mistake drifting for swimming: and we flatter ourselves on a compromise when all we have accomplished is a concession.
Indeed, if Sean-Paul Kelley is to be believed, the United States should heed the benefits of peace and enjoy our position of power. Yet, this statement is doubly wrong. Firstly, there is a great deal of war in the world today and many areas where peace and stability are merely deceptive facades. Should we simply abandon a large part of the world for the sake of stability and the status quo or actively shrink the Gap?
The second part of the statement I take issue with is that upsetting the status quo will endanger our position in the world. By inferrence, we can assume that Kelley values US hegemony but disagrees with our use thereof. As a fellow Kissinger fan, I’d like to remind him of a statement Kissinger made in Dipomacy, namely that the real challenge the U.S. faces is
Great empires don’t compete against other systems per se, they strive to become “the system”
Indeed, if we hope to create the more peaceful and prosperous world that so many desire it’s imperative to rise up and take the opportunity to create it, not play balance of power politics forever. In fact, as globalization spreads wealth and power, taking advantage of our current hegemony and unrivaled superpower status is absolutely necessary. As Martin Luther King once said that there’s no sadder word in English than “too late.”
It would be wise to heed the wisdom of Robert Kaplan in his essay on the dangers of peace:
Of course, there is often nothing worse than war and violent death. However, the truism that bears repeating is that peace, as a primary goal, is dangerous because it implies that you’ll sacrifice any principal for the sake of it.
In conclusion, this is not a call for unilateral action or multilateral action but action itself. Knowing when and where to act is the craft of statesmen, but someone who doesn’t act for fear of upsetting the status quo should seek out a new profession.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Prezzies for Chavez
- » The Decadent Society
COMMENTS / 8 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Token Withdrawal? added these pithy words on Aug 01 06 at 1:17 am[...] One thing is certain, the Georgians are smart enough to realize that if they plan to achieve their goals, they have to challenge the status quo or risk losing Abkhazia for good. [...]
The Agonist added these pithy words on Aug 01 06 at 10:39 pmPower Politics, Kavkaz Style
There’s been a lot of talk about a resurgent Russia in the media lately—an Economist front page, Time, Newsweek and the lot of them. I’m not sure why that is. As a pure, absolute measurement of power Russia is far, far behind its Soviet apogee. But …
IJ added these pithy words on 29 Jul 06 at 4:14 pmExtract from essay by Robert Kaplan:
“international goals are best realized through national self-interest, the President of the United States should . . . take over the U.N. in order to make it a transparent multiplier of American and Western power. That, of course, may not lead to peace, since others may resent it and fight as a result. . .”
You’re right about the need to question the status quo. Resource wars are likely to be very bloody affairs.
snow added these pithy words on 30 Jul 06 at 3:29 pmExcellent stuff! Standing still will get the US (or anyone else) nowhere. Continued action to remain on top is needed, just as in many professions such as sports, the arts and entertainment. If one doesn’t keep working at their craft, they will soon be overtaken by the competition and I think the same holds for countries in the world. Of course, it’s debatable as to what actions constitute moving forward, but…
Kirk H. Sowell added these pithy words on 01 Aug 06 at 7:02 amFunny, I just tonight finished watching Scarface again and only then did I read this post. To me Tony Montana most closely resembles a late Roman emporer raised to power by the pure force of his ruthlessness, ensuring that he would go the same way. Indeed, one of my favorite Kissinger truisms is this: the more thoroughly a revolutionary has destroyed the old order in taking power, the more thoroughly he must rely on brute power to maintain his position. Tony Montana’s main downfall was precisely that – he need to either work within the system or take control and fashion a new one, but he did neither, and he died the same way he took power.
Any post that allows you to combine Tony Montana and Henry Kissenger has got to be a great post!
When we discuss the status quo we must remember that our enemies are bent on changing it to their advantage while holding out the prospect of a greater peace. Iran is currently playing this role well – the Hizballah gambit and the new war in Lebanon was designed in Tehran to acheive precisely what it has acheived – to counter the growing consensus among Arab states of the Iranian threat and put the U.S. on the defensive. This war was started at a time of their choosing and is taking place on their terms.
This is the true price of accepting the “status quo” and the false stability of an unsustainable ceasefire.
IJ added these pithy words on 01 Aug 06 at 11:53 amThe War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil
The article speculates why stopping the fighting in Israel/Lebanon may not be a priority for the US and the UK: the countries think that allowing Israel to stretch its muscles will secure their oil interests in the wider region.
The US President suggested some time ago that nations are reduced to managing risk to themselves in a time of global disorder. Accordingly, Russia proposes setting up a naval base in the vicinity – at Tartus in Syria, about 30km from the Lebanese border. Does anyone want global order?
Kirk H. Sowell added these pithy words on 01 Aug 06 at 2:16 pmIJ:
I read the article and this is very poor analysis. As an initial matter, this recent conflict on Lebanon was started when Hizballah attacked northern Israel with both missiles and a cross-border incursion, and Israel has responded in self-defense. This is very bad timing for the U.S., because it pressures us in Iraq. Iran chose the timing of this attack, and it serves Iran’s needs.
The article refers to “Israeli sponsored bombing of Lebanon” as if this were somehow equivalent to, say, “Iranian sponsored” attacks by Hizballah or some other terrorist group. Israel is not sponsoring strikes in Lebanon through a proxy, it is striking Lebanon directly, and because Hizballah embeds itself and its rocket launchers within civilian populations, there is now also a humanitarian crisis to go along with a security crisis.
The suggestion that the American support for Israel is related to oil is simply absurd – the U.S. could most buttress its support among oil exporters by turning against Israel, since they are mostly anti-Israel themselves. Yet contrary to strict national interest the U.S. supports Israel because it is a free society defending itself against terrorist organizations and their sponsors who make the innocent their targets, and their human shields, as in Lebanon.
The free world failed the Jewish people once before and six million died; we cannot stand by again.
This article is not based on a good faith analysis of the regional situation, but anti-American and anti-Israeli bias.
Chirol added these pithy words on 01 Aug 06 at 2:51 pmglobalresearch.ca is a whacky conspiracy site. I’m surprised it was even recommended as a source of information.
