Tweet
AMERICANS APPROVE ISOLATIONISM
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/27986
Politics - Wednesday, 07 November 2012, 18:16
Isolationism is a primordial political tradition in the United States
and the United States began to part with it only at the beginning
of the 20th century but it took the Americans another 50 years to
establish a new foreign political tradition. Barack Obama tried to
apply the so-called doctrine of soft power in foreign policy.
This is not a stationary and final model of his political
style. The refusal of an active position in the foreign policy is
just the beginning of intensification and deepening of the policy of
isolationism. In the current political discourse in the United States
there is no substantial answer to the question whether this policy
is effective and in the interests of the United States. Neither the
neo-Conservatives nor the Reaganists and democrats were active in
this discussion.
The most interesting and meaningful answers were given by experts who
dealt with regional policies. The explanation is that these experts
are closer to the problems of regional security, the sphere where
Barack Obama's approaches and style are expressed clearly.
In addition, there is uncertainty, and NATO's new doctrine is
questioned which was adopted during the summit in Chicago in May 2012.
It is possible that this doctrine which supposes participation in NATO
goals has been preventively transformed into a version of isolationism.
In foreign policy Barack Obama consistently conducted a policy of
shifting responsibility on his partners who got considerable freedom
in different regions and soon got lost, not knowing what to do with
their freedom. Barack Obama's policy frightened most partners of the
United States who conducted a defense policy and a security policy
with consideration of the U.S. assistance.
There is no clarity about the U.S. intensions on the Near East and
Eurasia and the possible approaches of the United States to China. The
Americans have approved Barack Obama's policy, it appeals to them,
and they feel comfortable because they thought that it is safer to
live with not so ambitious goals and objectives.
Striking and very dangerous populism won which reminded the position of
the Munich agreement. The Republicans have a lot of supporters and the
middle class mostly supports the Republicans. However, Barack Obama's
policy is not determined by the global crisis, emergence of other
great powers or economic decline. This is bullshit. The United States
has and will continue to have advantages all through the 21st century.
A comparison of the GDP of the United States and China is meaningless.
The GDP and other categories are ideal pictures. The problem is in
the very American society when the Americans stop being Americans in
the social, demographic, ethnic, religious and mental aspect which
has determined the new motivations. This is already a different
United States.
Left liberalism wins in the American society. The American dream
is being substituted by the banal European liberal socialism (or
neosocialism). This became a factor of intensification of moods and
beliefs in the framework of isolationism. Barack Obama's second term
will be characterized by capitulation in the foreign policy.
The "calm" years of George Bush tenure have passed for most states,
including Armenia. It will be necessary to conduct the foreign policy
attentively and cautiously as regional threats and risks will grow. At
the same time, the U.S. political class is not straightforward, and
there will be opposition. These forces in the United States will need
partners not only in the United States.
A very complicated and tough game will start, and Barack Obama and his
team may make compromises, especially that the Republicans outnumber
Democrats in the House of Representatives. But the Congress is not the
only problem. The American society still has considerable political
resources to oppose the policy of capitulation. It will be necessary
to study America more closely, focusing on all the nuances and not
limiting oneself to usual routes of business trips of officials.
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/27986
Politics - Wednesday, 07 November 2012, 18:16
Isolationism is a primordial political tradition in the United States
and the United States began to part with it only at the beginning
of the 20th century but it took the Americans another 50 years to
establish a new foreign political tradition. Barack Obama tried to
apply the so-called doctrine of soft power in foreign policy.
This is not a stationary and final model of his political
style. The refusal of an active position in the foreign policy is
just the beginning of intensification and deepening of the policy of
isolationism. In the current political discourse in the United States
there is no substantial answer to the question whether this policy
is effective and in the interests of the United States. Neither the
neo-Conservatives nor the Reaganists and democrats were active in
this discussion.
The most interesting and meaningful answers were given by experts who
dealt with regional policies. The explanation is that these experts
are closer to the problems of regional security, the sphere where
Barack Obama's approaches and style are expressed clearly.
In addition, there is uncertainty, and NATO's new doctrine is
questioned which was adopted during the summit in Chicago in May 2012.
It is possible that this doctrine which supposes participation in NATO
goals has been preventively transformed into a version of isolationism.
In foreign policy Barack Obama consistently conducted a policy of
shifting responsibility on his partners who got considerable freedom
in different regions and soon got lost, not knowing what to do with
their freedom. Barack Obama's policy frightened most partners of the
United States who conducted a defense policy and a security policy
with consideration of the U.S. assistance.
There is no clarity about the U.S. intensions on the Near East and
Eurasia and the possible approaches of the United States to China. The
Americans have approved Barack Obama's policy, it appeals to them,
and they feel comfortable because they thought that it is safer to
live with not so ambitious goals and objectives.
Striking and very dangerous populism won which reminded the position of
the Munich agreement. The Republicans have a lot of supporters and the
middle class mostly supports the Republicans. However, Barack Obama's
policy is not determined by the global crisis, emergence of other
great powers or economic decline. This is bullshit. The United States
has and will continue to have advantages all through the 21st century.
A comparison of the GDP of the United States and China is meaningless.
The GDP and other categories are ideal pictures. The problem is in
the very American society when the Americans stop being Americans in
the social, demographic, ethnic, religious and mental aspect which
has determined the new motivations. This is already a different
United States.
Left liberalism wins in the American society. The American dream
is being substituted by the banal European liberal socialism (or
neosocialism). This became a factor of intensification of moods and
beliefs in the framework of isolationism. Barack Obama's second term
will be characterized by capitulation in the foreign policy.
The "calm" years of George Bush tenure have passed for most states,
including Armenia. It will be necessary to conduct the foreign policy
attentively and cautiously as regional threats and risks will grow. At
the same time, the U.S. political class is not straightforward, and
there will be opposition. These forces in the United States will need
partners not only in the United States.
A very complicated and tough game will start, and Barack Obama and his
team may make compromises, especially that the Republicans outnumber
Democrats in the House of Representatives. But the Congress is not the
only problem. The American society still has considerable political
resources to oppose the policy of capitulation. It will be necessary
to study America more closely, focusing on all the nuances and not
limiting oneself to usual routes of business trips of officials.
From: Baghdasarian