Comprehension Practice
In its response to 9/11, America has shown itself to be not only a hyper power but increasingly assertive and ready to use its dominance as a hyper power. After declaring a War on Terrorism, America has led two conventional wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating its overwhelmingly awesome military might. But these campaigns reveal something more: Americaâs willingness to have recourse to arms as appropriate and legitimate means to secure its interests and bolster its security. It has set forth a new doctrine: the right of pre-emptive strike when it considers its security, and therefore its national interests, to be at risk. The essence of this doctrine is the real meaning of hyper power. Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently argued that the only option in the face of hyper power is to offer wise counsel. But increasingly this is a course that governments and people across the world have refused. The mobilization for war against Iraq split the United Nations and provoked the largest anti-war demonstrations the world has ever seen. And through it all, America maintained its determination to wage war alone if necessary and not to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments when they faithfully represented the wishes of their electorates. Rather than engaging in debate, the American government expressed its exasperation. The influential new breed of neoconservative radio and television hosts went much further. They acted as ringmasters for outpourings of public scorn that saw French fries renamed âfreedom friesâ and moves to boycott French and German produce across America. If one sound-bite can capture a mood, then perhaps it would be Fox Newsâ Bill OâReilly. At the height of the tension over a second Security Council resolution to legitimate war in Iraq, Mr. OâReilly told his viewers that the bottom line was security, the security of his family, and in that matter âThereâs no moral equivalence between the US and Belgiumâ. It is, in effect, the ethos of hyper power articulated and made manifest in the public domain of 24-hour talk. And Americaâs willingness to prosecute war has raised innumerable questions about how it engages with other countries. Afghanistan has seen the removal of the Taliban. But there are no official statistics on the number of innocent civilians dead and injured to achieve that security objective. The people of Afghanistan have witnessed a descent into the chaos that preceded the arrival of the Taliban, a country administered not by a new era of democracy under the tutelage of the hyper power, but merely by the return of the warlords. Beyond Kabul, much of the country remains too insecure for any meaningful efforts at reconstruction and there is enormous difficulty in bringing relief aid to the rural population.
Questions & Answers
1. Why does the doctrine of power set by neo-imperial America deny space to counselling?
The doctrine of hyper power, which is the right of pre-emptive strike when America considers its security at risk, denies space to counseling because America demonstrated its determination to wage war alone if necessary and refused to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments.
2. What is the essence of âmoral equivalenceâ whereas War has no moral justification?
The essence of 'moral equivalence' in this context is captured by the idea that there is âno moral equivalence between the US and Belgiumâ, signifying the hyper powerâs belief that its overwhelming security needs justify actions that transcend normal moral comparisons with other nations.
3. Why do countries occupied and under the tutelage of hyper power have no peace?
Countries occupied under the tutelage of hyper power have no peace because, as seen in Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban led to a descent into the chaos that preceded their arrival. The country is administered not by democracy, but merely by the return of the warlords, remaining too insecure for meaningful reconstruction and relief aid.
4. Arguably Europe and hyper power US are at cross purposes over the concept of war. Are they? Why?
Yes, they are arguably at cross purposes. The mobilization for war against Iraq split the United Nations, and America refused to be counselled by allied governments whose concerns faithfully represented the wishes of their electorates. This indicates a fundamental disagreement, or "cross purposes," on the correct use of force.
5. What Tony Blairâs meant by âwise counselâ, and did it prevail?
Tony Blair meant that offering wise counsel was the only option in the face of hyper power. It did not prevail, as America maintained its determination to wage war alone and refused to be counselled by allied governments.