Thursday, 07.17.08
How Geopolitics Intrudes
Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
Aspen sang this year with pleas for the next president to make climate change --and the protection of dwindling resources -- the centerpiece of his foreign policy, thus fusing in a very concrete way America's national interest with that of the wider world. There was clearly a yearning for a new, more elevated brand of American patriotism that co-opted these global issues as national security interests - which indeed they are. Americans have always been a people of the frontier, and just as civil rights constituted a new frontier of enlightened patriotism in the 1960s, tackling environmental challenges looks like the new frontier of this and future decades.
The facts presented were compelling, from falling water levels in the Great Lakes to rising sea levels world-wide that could kill and make homeless tens of millions of people in Bangladesh alone. It became obvious, listening to the briefings and panel discussions that we are on the verge of more cataclysmic events like the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 -- event that will reshape public perceptions of foreign policy. We inhabit an increasingly crowded world with extremely fragile infrastructures subject to the slightest shifts in climatic and seismic patterns. As I wrote in my 1994 Atlantic article, The Coming Anarchy, the natural environment will be the national security focus of the 21st century.
But there is, nevertheless, a problem: the more mundane, less uplifting, narrower issues of geopolitics that will inevitably intrude. To relegate geopolitics to the background threatens to provoke other sorts of cataclysms that will permanently distract the new president from these newer concerns. Only by effectively handling Iraq and Afghanistan, the wider war on terrorism and the rising military power of China can a new president build up the political capital to lead the world on climate change and sustainability.
Obviously, the two sets of issues are not mutually exclusive. The new president can and will focus on both at the same time. In the early months of his administration he will seek to consolidate and build upon the gains in Iraq over the past 18 months, even as he tackles global warming in a serious way, thus reversing the neglect of the Bush Administration.
But a president cannot simply ditch geopolitics for post-national politics. He must make a serious adjustment to the policies of George W. Bush, not renounce them altogether. And my worry at Aspen was that while there were some excellent, dutiful panels on traditional national security concerns, especially on nuclear weapons, the audience's heart lay elsewhere. Tellingly, the dramatic rescue of three American military contractors from a five-and-a-half-year-long captivity in the Colombian jungles, as prisoners of the narco-terrorist group, FARC, elicited little or no chatter among the conference participants - even though the rescue in and of itself dealt a major strategic blow to the anti-American left throughout South America.
As excellent and jam-packed with substance as the conference was, there was an element of narcissism among at least a few participants, who wanted to embrace issues like global warming to the exclusion of all else. A new president will not have that luxury. Only if he furiously concentrates on traditional, 19th century balance-of-power politics and gets that right will the path be clear for him to embrace the ultimately more critical issues raised at Aspen.
The climate warsIn Foreign Policy, Jamais Cascio argues that the struggle against climate change will lead to states using the environment as a weapon. |
Environmental leadershipBryan Walsh thinks that Americans must make climate change "the first of their political demands." |
International first respondersJohn Podesta and Peter Ogden argue that climate change will cause humanitarian crises across the globe, and the United States must be quick to react. |
Beyond IraqMichael Klare foresees a new global order shaped by competition over energy resources and outlines the path American policy should take. |
(6)
Too bad that Stalin perverted the expression "rootless cosmopolitans". It would be a perfect fit for that bunch.
such nonsense. for the crack-smoking alternative energy bigots who will surely slurp up Kaplan's bs, here's an antidote - http://chizumatic.mee.nu/ghostsofmy_past
Mr. Kaplan,
Of course the Aspen crowd didn't talk about the recent FARC defeat. This was a set back for them because they believe if the FARC takes over Columbia that will be one less earth ravaging free economy to shut down.
Specifics please on what adjustments to Bush's policies you would suggest that aren't being done?
Europe has negotiated with Iran for years to no avail. Maybe scold Russia for supplying Iran with nuclear technology or scold China for refusing to hold Mugabi responsible for his atrocities? The world can sit back in unearned comfort while mocking Bush and reviling American soldiers who do the dirty work which has kept them safe enough to worry about the weather.
Will someone please stand up have the courage to say Bush was right. The Europeans won't admit it publicly, but look at who they've elected. The mantra that Bush has alienated our allies is an electioneering lie that the Democrats have been spewing for too long. The next time someone throws out the platitude of going in the wrong direction please be specific. L Cole
Hey L Cole, what's it like in dreamland? Because here in the real world Bush's policies have amounted to shit. "The courage to say Bush was right!?" You must mean the lunacy to say he's right. At this point you'd have to be retarded to think his war in Iraq has been a success. (Nevermind that there was never a good reason to invade that country in the first place, and that the son of a bitch lied to get us involved in this morass.) Even the war in Afghanistan failed. The Taliban are back, for one thing.
Now he wants to get us involved in another useless and protracted war in Iran, yet he doesn't have the troops to do it. Add the fact that a U.S. intelligence review has judged Iran to be at least 10 away from developing a nuclear bomb, and Bush sudden rush to war with that country looks suspiciously like his rational to invade Iraq. Non only is Bush a stupid, corrupt, arrogant failure, he's also a delusional failure.
How have American soldiers kept Europe safe? There have been more attacks on European soil by Al Qaeda since we invaded Iraq than before. When have any of our recent wars had anything to do with European interests? You'd have to go back to WWII for a war where American soldiers helped (parts of) Europe, and those Europeans still had a hand in helping, too.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
I wonder if Mr. Kaplan has read Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Post American World"? It is a brilliant assessment of the problems the new president will have to face.
Natalia
Posted by carmel schwartz | July 18, 2008 1:52 AM