nye213_Mark Makela_Getty Images_joe biden anthony blinken

كيف سيكون تدخل بايدن؟

Jan 5, 2021 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

كمبريدج ــ تميل السياسة الخارجية الأميركية إلى التأرجح بين التوجهات الداخلية والخارجية. كان الرئيس جورج دبليو بوش ميالا إلى التدخل؛ وكان خليفته باراك أوباما أقل ميلا إلى التدخل. وكان دونالد ترمب عازفا عن التدخل في الأغلب الأعم. تُـرى ماذا ينبغي لنا أن نتوقع من جو بايدن؟

في عام 1821، صَـرَّحَ جون كوينسي آدامز في مناسبة شهيرة أن الولايات المتحدة "لا تذهب إلى الخارج بحثا عن الوحوش لتدميرها. إنها تتمنى الخير والحرية والاستقلال للجميع. إنها تناصر القضايا التي تخصها فحسب وتدافع عنها". لكن أميركا تمارس أيضا تقليدا يدعم التدخل في شؤون الدول الأخرى منذ أمد بعيد. وحتى الرئيس تيدي روزفلت الذي اعتبر نفسه رجلا واقعيا زعم أن التدخل في حالات قصوى من انتهاك حقوق الإنسان "قد يكون مبررا ومناسبا". ودعا جون ف. كينيدي الأميركيين إلى أن يسألوا أنفسهم ليس فقط ما يمكنهم أن يفعلوا من أجل بلدهم بل وأيضا من أجل العالم.

منذ نهاية الحرب الباردة، تورطت الولايات المتحدة في سبع حروب وتدخلات عسكرية، ولم يكن أي منها مرتبطا بشكل مباشر بمنافسات القوى العظمى. أعلنت استراتيجية جورج دبليو بوش للأمن الوطني لعام 2006 هدف الحرية الذي يتجسد في مجتمع عالمي من الديمقراطيات.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Peter Schaeffer Jan 9, 2021

I sure don't speak for Biden and don't have any insights as to how he thinks. However, he appears to know that America's recent foreign interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have gone badly. He probably also knows that Libya probably cost Hillary the White House. My guess is that he doesn't want to go down that road. But you never know. Of course, the future is unpredictable. If the US is attacked, anything is possible. A more likely scenario is that China attacks Taiwan forcing Biden's hand. That still a low probability even, but not inconceivable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sing Koo Jan 6, 2021

The intransigent posture of unilateralism by the Trump Administration will likely be abandoned by Biden, recrudescence of unilateral intervention is unlikely. With the return of multilateralism, prudent intervention that aligns with allies’ interest will be in favored over Trump’s random intervention as exemplified by the Iran air strike and magnanimous attitude towards Russia’s bounty on American soldiers. In retrospect, such behavior has failed to serve as an epigraph towards defining a consistent foreign policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Jan 6, 2021

I only claim this to be an expression of my own intellect (experience). Not the result of anyone else’s belief. Albert Einstein said, “The secret to genius is not to reveal your sources” (he did this MANY times). Albert Einstein also said, “You cannot both plan for peace and plan for war.” I understand that he was correct in this statement, but I did not derive this truth by believing in his conclusion. It is my own conclusion, and mine alone.

You cannot aim for both War and Peace. The process of Rationalism (Planning, Propaganda and their Implementation) to achieve one and not the other are mutually exclusive. I.e. your goal cannot be both annihilationism and coexistence, nor dither between them. The thought patterns for both/each diverge, and cannot be reconciled. You must choose one or the other, i.e. dedicate yourself to one goal and oppose the other. (The two goals are totally incompatible.)

Neither can either goal (annihilationism or coexistence) come to agreement or compromise. There is no solution created by compromise between the two aims.

Political nihilism (gridlock/Mexican standoff between those that promote annihilationism and coexistence) only maintains the Status Quo, which itself is unacceptable. It simply preserves a state in which neither war nor peace prevail, only those who control the system of money, and choose between peace and war depending on which is the most profitable to them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Wu Jan 5, 2021

Where do you place within the spectrum interventions that aim to create chaos and social instability ? For example, support for colour revolutions in the Middle East that ended with anarchy in Libya, and civil war in Syria ? Sure, these might be for the benefit of US national interest, but to promote democracy and human rights ? And should the US be compelled to mitigate the consequences of such actions ? For example, Europe has been bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis, whereas the Trump administration has significantly reduced its commitment to providing refuge for those people displaced directly or indirectly as a result of US foreign policy. How about the US support for anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, with the explicit promise of refuge, only to renege on that promise when the bill was blocked by Ted Cruz ? Or to use sanctions not as a means to protect human rights, but as a bargaining chip, or even to protect wrongdoers such as the case of deterring the ICC investigation into US war crimes ? After the events of recent years, I think even traditional US allies will question the ulterior motive of foreign intervention by US administrations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/gPENthkar

كيف سيكون تدخل بايدن؟

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

كيف سيكون تدخل بايدن؟

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification