Damodar Is this an interview with Bronwen Maddox? Where is this interview from? Warmly
2008/11/6 damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *He may bring fresh hope and cheer, but the world won't stop hating > America* > > Two months ago I brought out a book called *In Defence of America*. A > short book, perhaps I should say. I did not want or try to defend George W. > Bush's invasion of Iraq, or his creation of the prison camp at Guantanamo > Bay, which stand as an offence against intelligence, humanity and the rule > of law. But I did take issue with the *antiAmericanis*m that I felt had > blossomed in Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, had taken root > during the Bush years and seemed likely to outlast him. > > *Does Barack Obama's victory make that case redundant? When crowds are > celebrating across Europe, when columnists are heralding the rebirth of > America, is there no need any more for that argument? Unfortunately not. Mr > Obama's triumph makes the case easier to argue; it does not get rid of the > reasons for making it.* > I would agree entirely with Mr Obama's champions that his success is > momentous. The image of Barack, Michelle and their daughters, waving high, > over the caption "President-elect", changed the role of the US in the world. > It showed that the US can confront the worst shadow over its claim to be > united by ideals of equality and freedom: the rifts and prejudices which are > the legacy of slavery and institutional racism. Americans' overwhelming vote > for the son of a Muslim confounded the charge that the US is on a crusade > against that religion. After years in which, critics say, the US was > hypocritical (and unsuccessful) in promoting democracy, the election showed > that it can live up to its own ideals of democratic change. > > *That does not get rid of the deep opposition that now exists to the US > taking a leading role in the world, and the suspicion of its motives. It > does not get rid of the filter of prejudice that takes for granted the best > that the US achieves, and exaggerates the worst. > > Expectations of Mr Obama around the world have moved from the vocabulary of > politics into magic*. To hear some claims that this is a giant step for > mankind, you would think that people had found a universal saviour. Despite > the determination of Mr Obama to rebuild ties with the world he is bound to > disappoint those hopes.* He may run into the usual limits of US influence, > force or money. Or he may, with every justification, pursue the interests of > 300 million Americans, not those of six billion other people. The old > resentment of the US may then be laid at his door. > > *On Sunday I took part in a debate on the role of the US as the world's > policeman as part of the Battle of Ideas, a weekend of talks in London > sponsored by *The Times*. The audience – urban , educated, moderate in > choice of words – was critical of the US, as were the other panellists (an > academic and a blogger). The US was lawless, guided only by self-interest, > they said – and they were not just talking about the Bush years. Many > derided the actions of the US in Central and Eastern Europe, denying that it > gave those countries much support. > > One man said quietly to me afterwards that he felt at odds with much of the > audience and thought that it was a generational division. "If you grew up in > the Cold War, you remember thinking that the bomb might drop, you remember > the Marshall Plan. But I think many younger people just say, 'That was then, > now is different'." > > I agree with him. You cannot dismiss the huge building blocks of the US's > postwar achievement in reconstructing Europe and in setting up the United > Nations as irrelevant to the present. *The foreign policy of the US has > always been a mixture of self-interest and idealism, never as pure as > admirers would like, rarely as venal as critics maintain. In the past 20 > years its support of central and eastern European countries, financially and > diplomatically, has been crucial to the smoothness with which many moved > from the Soviet Union to the European Union. * > > Of course, the US has been high-handed in its manner from its birth. The > fall of the Soviet Union, in making it the world's superpower, added > triumphalism. The national shock of September 11, 2001, injected paranoia > and an ugly version of its historic sense of manifest destiny to its > confused attempt to identify its enemies. The Bush Administration > specialised in handcrafted insults of old allies. > > It would be wrong to pretend that Mr Bush was entirely an oddity in his > foreign policy. You cannot reject the worst of the US's actions without > throwing out the idealism and the willingness to intervene in others' > problems, which inspired its best. If it were not for Iraq, Bush would have > won more credit for the past two years, in which he has done much of what is > reasonable for the world to ask of a US president. He has worked with other > countries through the United Nations, tried to engage the Middle East and > taken the great share of military burdens in joint conflicts. > > Mr Obama said that he wanted to restore the US's standing in the world. > Already, he has done so. He will be incomparably better than Mr Bush. But > his foreign champions seem to want from him a vast commitment of time, money > and lives of US soldiers – and in their interests, as much as the US's own. > That is to set for him a standard that no US president has tried to meet. It > is to construct a pretext to let loose again, at some point, the > antiAmerican sentiment that has certainly not gone away. > > Of course, the US has been high-handed in its manner from its birth. The > fall of the Soviet Union, in making it the world's superpower, added > triumphalism. T*he national shock of September 11, 2001, injected paranoia > and an ugly version of its historic sense of manifest destiny to its > confused attempt to identify its enemies.* The Bush Administration > specialised in handcrafted insults of old allies. > > It would be wrong to pretend that Mr Bush was entirely an oddity in his > foreign policy. You cannot reject the worst of the US's actions without > throwing out the idealism and the willingness to intervene in others' > problems, which inspired its best. If it were not for Iraq, Bush would have > won more credit for the past two years, in which he has done much of what is > reasonable for the world to ask of a US president. He has worked with other > countries through the United Nations, tried to engage the Middle East and > taken the great share of military burdens in joint conflicts. > > Mr Obama said that he wanted to restore the US's standing in the world. > Already, he has done so. He will be incomparably better than Mr Bush. But > his foreign champions seem to want from him a vast commitment of time, money > and lives of US soldiers – and in their interests, as much as the US's own. > That is to set for him a standard that no US president has tried to meet. It > is to construct a pretext to let loose again, at some point, the > antiAmerican sentiment that has certainly not gone away. > > > > > -- Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
