A Portrait of Our President: The Slow Road To Insignificance

(2) WeaknessDan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official in the British Telegraph wrote about Britain’s impotence in the face of threats. He made certain observations. I suggest his comments are equally applicable to President Obama and the United States. When our closest ally falls into this type of thinking it is usually a reflection of our own.

Hodges wrote: That Tony Blair a month after 9/11 said: “This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon, they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.”

He continued:  “ . . . the pieces are no longer in flux. Instead, they lie scattered over the Ukrainian countryside, or drift listlessly across a blood-stained beach in Gaza and down the dusty, battle-scarred streets of Syria and Iraq. “

He went on: “this we know for certain: their deaths [Flight MH17] also mark the death of British “soft power” . . . Britain and its American allies had attempted to reorder the world – most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq – and we had failed. So, in London, a new doctrine emerged. It was not about intervening, but cajoling. A form of internationalist “nudge”.

After telling of his interview with William Hague who said Britain was going about constructing partnerships, open more embassies and engage in more trade deals, Hodges wrote: “Yet soft power is simply a euphemism for no power. Or rather, it’s a euphemism for our unwillingness to use the power that we have. The world is currently on fire. And Britain’s default response is to sit back and watch it burn.”

Talking more about soft power he noted:  “Bashar al-Assad sends chemical weapons hurtling across the international community’s red lines. The British Parliament vetoes a response. Russia sends its forces into Ukraine. The British Government stops short of full sanctions. Boko Haram kidnaps 200 schoolchildren. The British Prime Minister holds up a sign saying: “Bring back our girls”. Boko  Haram promptly kidnaps 50 more. This is not isolationism. This is impotence. And it’s not just embraced in government, but among the British public at large. “Why should we be involved?” is our new motto. It was heard just before we announced our withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was heard when Isis launched their assault in Iraq. It was heard when Russian forces invaded Ukraine.”

He then noted: “William Hague announced that he wanted to spend more time writing and trying to help David Cameron hold seats such as Warwickshire North. And literally no one batted an eyelid. But then why should they? Because in 2014, the idea of the British Foreign Secretary actually influencing foreign affairs has become laughable.”

He went on: “Nor is it simply further evidence of Britain’s waning geopolitical stature. In the era of soft power, no one has any stature. The idea of the president of the United States influencing world affairs has now become as ludicrous as the idea of the British foreign secretary doing the same. The special relationship is now a mutual paralysis. Conventional wisdom holds that this is an improvement. We praise ourselves for our restraint, for learning the lessons of Iraq. But who really exerts power in the world today? Putin has power. Isis has power. Assad has power. And on that cold calculus, Britain is now a powerless nation.”

 Something to think about.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A Portrait of Our President: The Slow Road To Insignificance

  1. Ed says:

    For background information on the Slavs of Eastern Europe and the expansion of the Russian language with the Russian Empire, I recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Conquests and Cultures: An International History”.

    The name “Vladimir” means “rule with greatness”, “rule the world”, “sovereign ruler of the people”.

    http://www.behindthename.com/name/vladimir

    Likewise, Vladivostok, the Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, means “rule the East”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok

    Since Vladivostok was seized from China by the Russian Empire, perhaps Alaska, the states along the west coast of the United States and Hawaii have reason to worry:

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sewards-folly
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_America
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_North_America_since_1763
    http://www.interbering.com/Transcontinental-railway-Russia.html
    http://geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/introduction-to-yakutia-sakha-and-russias-grandiose-plans-for-the-region
    http://www.interbering.com/

    The Russians have not forgotten the British fighting them in the Crimean War (an initiator of the sale of Alaska to the United States), the Japanese fighting them in 1904-1905, and occupation by foreign troops during the Russian Revolution. Russia still occupies Japanese Sakhalin and Kuril Islands seized in 1945.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

    • mtc9393 says:

      Ed:

      Thanks for the information. I’ll have to get the book. Your are right that Alaska is part of the Old Russia. Let’s hope Putin doesn’t demand that we return it to Russia over the next two and a half years — the administration might be willing to at least give him part of it to keep the peace.

  2. GUS says:

    Mr. MATT, you’re spot on, the comments of Mr. DAN HODGES could absolutely be equally applied to President OBAMA and the United States. With JOHN KERRY galivanting around the globe bloviating about global warming and anti-sodomy laws, PUTIN and the other global bullies and miscreants have free reign to engage in any mischief that they please.

    • mtc9393 says:

      Gus:

      Kerry has been a problem. With respect to the dealings over Crimea the Russian foreign ambassador took him for a ride. His policies, like Obama’s, seemed quite at odds with what is happening in the world as you point out. He reminds me of the woman in one of Dickens stories who had a houseful of kids who were running amok and starving but she spent her time worrying about the little kids in Africa who weren’t getting enough to eat. We have a bad combination in office now, I’m also not impressed by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Perhaps I am wrong in asking them to do something about the MH17 matter because everything they have done in the past has been a disaster.

  3. Henry Barth says:

    Putin’s Deadly Doctrine
    ‘Protecting’ Russians in Ukraine Has Fatal Consequences

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/protecting-russians-in-ukraine-has-deadly-consequences.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>