Sorry I forgot to provide the link.. its a commentary. I took it from Times (london)
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
