The Transition to Global Governance
In 1989, November 9, the Berlin Wall came down signifying the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the ushering-in of what President George H. W. Bush called the “New
World Order” (1991). The goal of
American Foreign Policy, in part, may have been sound. I am talking about
the democratization of the Middle
East, however, the strategy and certainly the tactics conceived were
ill-advised. Democratization is a sound
goal but it has to take place assessing cultural idiosyncrasies. Rational thinking demands that a concept
should first be understood before it can be utilized. In 2003, President George W. Bush (Junior),
articulated his vision to democratize the Middle East using the American model. Obviously, such goal could not have been
readily achieved given that Middle Eastern societies’ cultural underpinnings
are different from those of the American society.
This was the first major misstep of American Foreign Policy.
The New World “Disorder” - Polyarchy
In 2000 the U.S. Senate gave China the Most Favored Nation (MFN) status favoring its
economic rise. Such economic rise was
synergistically fueled by China who wanted to grow economically and an
endemically insatiable American economy whose orientation is overconsumption. The creation of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 1995 was an advisable evolution of international trade, but, the
Regional Integration gave rise to polyarchy. Our current global environment is polyarchic. Global permeation and domination are pursued
by China, EU, India, S. Korea besides the historic powers of America and
Russia. As a result, there is greater
chaos in global governance as new global players are beginning to compete
against American dominance. This callous
assessment and behavior constitute the second major misstep of American Foreign Policy.
NATO’s expansion is a polemic move
With the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO continued to
enlarge eastward accepting into NATO countries formerly members of the Warsaw
Pact. This was considered a “bad faith”
move on the part of NATO and America. Why did NATO need to exist and, in fact, expand eastward, to currently
reaching the borders of Russia? The
countries of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and more are newly democratized
and members of the EU. But, why do they
need to belong to NATO, when the Warsaw Pact is no longer? What is the direct relevance between
democratization and a military organization?
NATO’s expansion eastwards is not a trust-building measure between
America and Russia. Why
has America in 2022 invested more than $110 billion in Ukraine? Such positioning constitutes the third major of American Foreign Policy.
The Monroe Doctrine – Lessons for Russia
In 1823, the then President of the United States James Monroe established the so-called
Monroe Doctrine which regarded foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere
as a hostile act against the United States. Question: Why doesn’t Russia have
the right to set its own doctrine analogous to that of the Monroe Doctrine? Such American Foreign Policy
does not project America as judicious but rather as imperialistic because of
the given policy’s moral ambiguity.
This constitutes the fourth major misstep of American Foreign Policy.
Suboptimum U.S. Strategies in a Polyarchic Environment
The most recent U.S. strategy, to consider a polemic stature against
Russia on behalf of Ukraine is to be debated. It shows a suboptimum consideration, of the global dynamics and
implications of its position to engage in the conflict between Ukraine and
Russia by offering military supplies to Ukraine. Before the invasion of
Russia into Ukraine, in February 2022, Ukraine had applied for membership into
NATO. Following such application in 2008, Ukraine was denied fast-track
membership because of human rights violations and its lack of progress toward a
market economy. In 2014 Russia invaded Crimea because of presumed threats
to its sovereignty by Ukraine, a soon-to-become member of NATO. It
would be useful to revisit back to 1990, when the Soviet Union collapsed. At that time, there was an agreement between NATO and Russia for NATO not to
expand into the former Warsaw Pact territories of Eastern Europe. The NATO
alliance postulates that it never authorized such an agreement. Circulating information suggests that such agreement was made orally but not in
writing. Consequently, NATO suggested, that such agreement is not
binding. Obviously, this was a failure of Russia not to secure such an
agreement in writing and in the form of a treaty. A note should be made
here that Crimea was offered to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift from the Russian
people to celebrate the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. Other
unspoken and subtle issues may further underscore the conflict between Ukraine
and Russia.
In addition, since the contemporary realities of a polyarchic
global environment, are different than those of the environment back in the
1990s, the current U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and Russia has been rather
inflexible and dismissive, given that it has effectively contributed to creating a potentially
partnering relationship between Russia and China against the U.S. The
above leads me to ask: What is the U.S. doing in Ukraine? I consider this
to be the fifth, and, an even greater major misstep of American Foreign
Policy.
A Final Observation
The neoliberal drive toward globalization has
erroneously disregarded the adverse impact of inherent differences in
cross-cultural values. The promotion of
“diversity”, at this time, dominates the American socioeconomic culture. Certainly, diversity is needed and it is advisable
in a “regulative”, “organizational” or “agenda-oriented” environment. But, “diversity”, in “cognitive-cultural”
environments, does promote dilution of endemic cultural values, bringing about disorientation, disarray and conflict in global governance.
Author: CGP .+.
Author: CGP .+.
