U.S. National security advisor condoleezza rice calls on europeans to fight iran and north korea and to stand shoulder to shoulder with the u.S
Condoleezza rice, the white house security adviser, in a speech at the international institute for strategic studies in london, urged europeans to finally get behind the u.S. In the case of north korea and iran to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction – when they are in the hands of the wrong people. Like before the iraq war, she threatened the us to go it alone if the europeans did not, not ruling out military action. With a clear hint to france, it embodied the idea of a multipolar world order: unity is required.
Rice was allowed to be a "vanguard" the u.S. Government with its speech not only wants to test the reaction of europeans, but also to warn north korea, iran and other possible rogue states that, as in the case of iraq, if necessary militarily and even alone, the security interests of the u.S. Will be enforced. Europeans should hold back, american power "keep in check", but prefer to act decisively with the u.S. Against threats to global security.
We don’t want to deal with the problem of arms proliferation the way we did with iraq. If you don’t want a made-in-america solution, let’s figure out how to solve the case of north korea and the case of iran.
Rice also made clear that violence will not be ruled out by the u.S. Government: "the prevention of violence is not in itself a final goal. Sometimes you have to fight wars to deal with bullies." in the case of north korea and iran, she said in the subsequent discussion that it is impossible to know how far the initiative against these countries will go: "but it’s extremely important that countries like north korea realize that if they don’t live up to their international commitments, they’re going to pay the price. The north koreans must be stopped and the world must stop them. How far this will go, i don’t think anyone can predict."
One has already "two of the cruelest regimes of this time or of all time" disempowers. Now again "many nations" to fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to address the problems posed by north korea and iran.
Unity is rice’s key term for closing ranks with the u.S. And other nations "freedom-loving nations" calls for. The goal, he said, since the sudden attack on 11.9. Clear: "we have decided that the only real defense against a threat of this kind is to destroy it at its root and turn to its fundamental and ideological core."
Against the hatred and the bullies
Rice, however, turns to this core, as seems to be the custom with the u.S. Government, only again by using some stereotypes. The conspicuous absence of even the slightest trace of self-criticism concerning u.S. Or western policies. Criticism is only for a policy that does not conform to the usa. It is possible that they want to "enemy" keep as hazy as possible so as not to be defined. Above all, the enemy is motivated by hate (by implication, then, the u.S. Had to be christian motivated by love). The characterization is used to justify military force against the evil ones who hate all good, freedom and progress, which is what the usa stands for.
Why the hatred is directed at the usa, which after all only "safer, better and freer" makes, by "build a global trading system that is more and more free to expand the circle of prosperity to the americas, africa and the middle east", is not answered. Hatred is apparently a groundless emotion. After all, rice says that terror matures where "progress and development" are not available: "it thrives in the vacuum where new ideas, new hopes and new desires are forbidden. Terror lives when freedom dies." besides the haters there are the "tyrants" and "the angry few who want to impose their will on the majority".
It is necessary, rice said, not only to bring the values of common civilization to people around the world, but also to bring the values of common civilization to people around the world "war of ideas" by addressing the hope "for a better life and a better future" to win, but also to defend it. This requires strict unity among all who share these values "values of freedom" – political and economic – share. Somehow it is also about the since 11.9. Ripped open "deep gap between the forces of chaos and order", and because "war against terror" can only be won together, the defended civilization must then also be orderly, which apparently means: unanimously.
Unity with the usa as a historic opportunity
Rice described the danger of multipolarity, the idea that there should not be just one superpower with its shifting coalitions, but several centers of power that contain each other. In order to emphasize the (american-dominated) unity, rice reaches deep into the box of history. The (american) unity is in fact connected to the unification process in europe and the extended transatlantic alliance, which includes russia as a partner:
This combination of common interests and shared values creates a historic opportunity to break the destructive pattern of great power rivalry that has plagued the world since the rise of nation states in 17. The twentieth century has been haunted. This is actually more than an opportunity. It is a commitment.
Now the heavyweights can and should work together to resolve conflicts. But this does not suit some, as rice sharply criticizes, referring especially to france, which does not want to submit easily to the commitment defined by the united states: "some have spoken admiringly, almost nostalgically, of ‘multipolarity’, as if it were something good to be wished upon oneself." however, what is true in the (free) economy is far from true for political freedom. There is to be no competition, as rice ares:
The reality is that ‘multipolarity’ has never been a unifying idea or vision. It was a necessary evil that kept the war away, but did not lead to the triumph of peace. Multipolarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests – and at worst – of competing values.
Power in the service of freedom can not hurt
One had already tried this, which somehow to the "rough war" which then led to the "good war" and finally into the "cold war" had passed over. Today, however, rivalry is a hindrance. And whoever thinks that "values of freedom" to impose obstacles of multipolarity, would be siding with the "enemies of freedom". Democratic institutions are already a barrier to the excesses of power.
But because the rough unity under the wings of the usa is not exactly called a "democratic institution" rice has to emphasize the american power again and somehow show that the contrast to the gegebibelte multipolarity is not the hegemony of a superpower. After all, when it comes to doing good, power can’t hurt: "power in the service of freedom must be buried, and powers that share a commitment to freedom can – and must – stand up to the enemies of freedom."
Rice does not make clear what the model of cooperation in a united, non-multipolar world looks like. Ideologically, this was probably supposed to look like unity based on the common values of freedom, which in economics is defined by competition, in politics by solidarity. And since the usa is the embodiment of these values, it is destined to be the leader of the group. Dissenting opinions are unwanted. And to this end, rice also brings chancellor schroder on board, who, in his reward speech on 9. May said:
Surely we all agree that in world politics we want to have only one pole to which we orient ourselves: the pole of freedom, peace and justice.
The groping of germany and the rebuff of france are, however, also subject to interpretation despite the approving quote. Rice deliberately failed to continue schroder’s sentence, which was addressed to the usa:
We certainly agree that the actions of a state, however crude and powerful, are not without effect on the situation of its partners and friends, and for this reason alone consultation is always better than confrontation.
Even when it comes directly to business, dissenting opinions are undesirable
President bush, on the other hand, made it clear before his africa trip that the u.S. Government would not be militarily involved in peacemaking missions in congo or liberia. Africa will be helped to achieve more prosperity and peace. Help is available in the form of 100 million dollars for the fight against terrorism. Bush has promised 15 billion dollars to fight aids, now he wants to add another billion to fight hunger. As is well known, this is not without its own interests, because they want to open up the african market for genetically modified plants and foodstuffs ("the american way of life" has little regard for the consumer). So africa became "autonomous" with regard to food. The problem is – so much for unity and multipolarity – that europe is preventing the usa from helping the africans (cf. Bush also attacked "old europe"):
But there’s a problem. There’s a problem. At present, some governments are blocking the import of crops grown with biotechnology, which discourages african countries from producing and exporting these crops. The ban of these countries is unfounded; it is unscientific; it is undermining the agricultural future of africa. And i urge them to stop this ban.