RubinReports: Is America A Declining Power? Its Friends Think So and They Are Scared

Is America A Declining Power? Its Friends Think So and They Are Scared

By Barry Rubin

“What do you think,” asked the reporter, about the U.S. pressure on China?”

Puzzled, I responded, “What pressure on China?”

And then I realized what he meant. Like many observers, especially those in the Third World, he thought that U.S. policy was very tightly coordinated. In other words, the United States was about to sell arms to Beijing’s rival, Taiwan, and have the Dalai Lama, who claims to be the rightful ruler of Chinese-occupied Tibet, come to Washington as part of a grand scheme to force China into supporting sanctions against Iran.

This is, partly, where conspiracy theories come from, assuming that every step taken by the United States is carefully planned out and that every event in the world—given American power—is part of a larger scheme. Why believe that the United States itself blew up the World Trade Center? Based on the assumption that the United States is too strong, its intelligence too good, to let a bunch of barely trained terrorists enter country, board planes, and fly them into its tallest building.

It’s sort of a backhanded compliment in a way. But of course, the September 11, 2001, attacks did succeed due partly to a mix of American democratic openness and incompetent naiveté (plus luck, of course).

And increasingly the idea of an omnipotent United States, whose wrath must be feared and protection is worth cultivating, is sharply on the decline in today's world. Which is, after all, what President Barack Obama wants, at least the first part of those two items. But be careful what you wish for, in this case you will get it.

In fact, the United States is not pressuring China to raise sanctions against Iran, though it is politely asking it to do so. Indeed, there are some interesting clues here to anyone curious about whether the United States is a declining power. Like clues in any mystery, they are very small and have to be examined carefully under a magnifying glass.

On her first visit to China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly—publicly, mind you—announced that human rights would not be an issue in U.S.-China relations. It is one thing for a U.S. government to play down the question in direct talks, but to announce publicly it was off the table, getting nothing in return, is quite a concession. If the Chinese government believes her, that is a green light for it to act in a more repressive manner.

Come to think of it, the administration in effect did the same thing to the Iranian regime after the stolen election until Iran’s obvious intransigence and public pressure at home forced President Barack Obama to reverse himself somewhat.

Then on another trip, Clinton made as her main publicized argument for China to back sanctions on Iran that unless it did so Israel might attack Iran. That is, she was avoiding any threat of U.S. action against China (support sanctions or we’ll hurt you) or the idea that China must act or the United States would have to (support sanctions or one day America will have to attack Iran) but only based on the actions of a third party, Israel.

This is the approach taken by an administration that wants to avoid the use of power at almost all costs, and dozens of other examples can be cited to demonstrate that point.

Take the Dalai Lama, for example. When he visited Washington the last time, Obama—reversing the behavior of his three predecessors—refused to meet with him.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-dali-lama-dilemma-good-case.html

What the Obama Administration has repeatedly signaled other countries can be defined as possible:

--To enemies: We are sorry, let’s engage, we’ll make compromises and work out all our problems.

--To key neutrals with whom the United States has ok relations (like Russia, China, and Pakistan): We need you more than you need us.

--To friends outside of Western Europe: We won’t necessarily back you against your enemies. To me the single most shocking example is the refusal to back Iraqi complaints about Syrian sponsorship of terrorism (which also killed Americans) against it, but there are many more.

--To Western Europeans: We won’t ask you to do anything you don’t want to do and if we do you can safely ignore us.

Is this above classification 100 percent fair? No, exceptions can be found. But it is not a distorted picture either.

This is a portrait of a president and an administration which wants to be popular above almost all things, which seeks to avoid conflict, which is apologetic about American power. It could be argued that this is a necessary downplaying of international affairs to focus on domestic issues. The problem is that such a posture invites, rather than defuses, problems. At any rate, contrary to the pre-inaugural predictions of Vice President Joe Biden, the administration has not yet faced a single major crisis. But I don’t think that can be attributed to this strategy and how much longer will its luck hold? Long, one hopes.

All this brings us to Lech Walesa, revered leader of Poland’s struggle against both Soviet and Communist tyranny. He has now taken the unprecedented step of going to Illinois to endorse a Republican candidate for governor there. The candidate is a Polish-American but still this is an amazing thing to do.

During his visit, Walesa said:

"The US does not lead morally or politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. That was the hope, that whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today we lost that hope"



Yet why did Walesa say such a thing? Obviously, there is a general worry throughout many countries about the weakness of the Obama administration. But there’s more:



--Poland had gone out on a limb to accept American defensive missiles, nominally against Iran but really as a sign of U.S. commitment to protect Poland from Russia.



--Not only did the Obama administration change its plan (which is justifiable regarding the anti-Iran defenses argument but not the wider and real strategic purpose) but it did so without consulting the Polish government which was only informed at the last minute.



http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/09/canceling-american-missiles-in-europe.html





--The decision was announced on September 17, 2009, which everyone in Central Europe knew was the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, followed by the annexation of eastern Poland to the USSR.



It was a triple slap in the face of Poland and every nation which regained independence from Soviet tyranny.



But that’s not all. Everyone but the Central Europeans seems to have forgotten an open letter sent to Obama last July by 22 top Central European figures, including 7 former prime ministers or presidents, and 9 former foreign or defense ministers begging him not to abandon them. Walesa was one of them.



The letter stated:



“We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States [accepted Soviet domination over it] And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle.”



http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/central-europe-to-obama-administration.html



Not only is the Obama administration failing to stand up for liberal democratic values—and I mean here not just advocating democracy abroad but even more importantly supporting democratic friends and opposing expansionist dictatorships—but arguably it is not even standing up for U.S. interests.



Even the South American reporter interviewing me, the conversation mentioned at the start of this article, evinced a fear for his own country given the lack of U.S. leadership and failure to oppose dictatorships like Iran and Venezuela.



The good news is that the problem does not arise from America’s people or its military strength or even its economic difficulties. A lack of will, a thirst for empty popularity, and an ideological orientation among its current leaders is to blame.



These factors can be easily remedied if those in power come to understand that they must use power. And I’m not talking here about attacking anybody militarily but combating them by rallying friends and creating a clear, coordinated strategy, toughness, and determined diplomatic efforts.



Many, who support the administration, no doubt find this analysis to be unfair, biased, or even ridiculous. But here’s the problem: a very long list of examples can be provided as evidence of this fact and almost nothing can be added up in the other column.



For people who boast about listening to the rest of the world, they should start listening to the rest of the world that is friendly toward the United States.

RubinReports: Is America A Declining Power? Its Friends Think So and They Are Scared

RubinReports: Victims of Dictatorship Unite: Why Central Europeans, Jews and Israelis Should Cooperate, Not Compete

Victims of Dictatorship Unite: Why Central Europeans, Jews and Israelis Should Cooperate, Not Compete

Please subscribe

By Barry Rubin


Note: This article is a response to an op-ed by Ephraim Zuroff in the Jerusalem Post. To show my respect for Mr. Zuroff, I gave a blurb which is on the back cover of his latest book. But it is necessary to rethink the relationship between Jews and the peoples of Central Europe—including Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and other countries—regarding the events of the World War Two era. Rather than compete over our sufferings in that period, we should join forces in exploring and exposing the traumas of that period.

Central to Mr. Zuroff’s argument is the claim that any emphasis by Central European countries regarding their own sufferings during World War Two—especially if it focuses on the oppression of the Stalinist USSR—is somehow a challenge to the uniqueness and importance of the mass murder of Jews in those countries. Indeed, it is implied that this effort borders on or even exemplifies antisemitism.

I think this argument is fallacious and a strategic mistake. It is never a good idea to concea history. Due to the existence of the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc until 1991, the truth about the terrible oppression of Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles, Ukrainians, and others was hidden away from the world until recently. As part of their national reassertion, these peoples want to highlight what happened to them and the full horror of their sufferings.

They have every right to do so. And why should we oppose this as long as it does not come with the ignoring or justification of the Shoah? Is our highest priority to set up a competition of suffering , in which we define these oppressions as conflicting rather than mutually reinforcing? Instead, we should fully participate, as Jews and Israelis, in this process for several good reasons.

One factor is that many Jews were among the victims of Soviet repression. In the Lithuanian museum in Vilnius housed in the former KGB headquarters, it is pointed out that about ten percent of those deported by the Soviets in 1940-1941 were Jews. One of them was Menahem Begin. Although being sent to Siberia saved those who survived those camps, this was not the intention. Almost 1,000 Jews were massacred by the KGB in the Katyn forest along with thousands of Poles. Is the blood of these Jews and the tens of thousands who perished in the Soviet Gulag of lesser value than those murdered by the Germans?

Indeed, even if it came a very distant second to the Nazis, the Stalin regime also targeted Jews and greatly contributed to their suffering. If it had not been for the Soviet-Nazi alliance, Hitler might not have been able to start the war in the first place. Stalin turned over some Jewish leaders to the Nazis and being a Zionist was a criminal offense under the Soviet regime, including in the countries conquered by Moscow during the war.

A second reason why we should join with Central Europeans in commemorating and revealing the true extent of this repression and mass murder is to help Jews and others understand today that antisemitism is not a monopoly of the political right. This is of high importance at a time when the main source of antisemitism along with hatred of Jews and Israel in the West is from a left which justifies itself by claiming that it is immune to that contagion.

Third, the idea that Jews should only deal with Central Europeans nowadays by demanding they endlessly proclaim their guilt over the Shoah is counterproductive, likely to produce resentment rather than acknowledgement by them of responsibility and true repentence. By merely demanding they acknowledge guilt over our suffering—often at their hands--while refusing to heed their historic suffering at the hands of others is setting up a conflict exploited by antisemitic elements. We should engage in a dialogue in which we respect their historical experience, which is also that of many Jews as well. On this basis of solidarity against totalitarianism, we can stand together as friends.

In fact, these are precisely issues on which we need to cooperate today. At a time when nationalism is viewed as an unacceptable evil, we should affirm the importance of our shared belief in the preciousness of our peoplehood. We share, too, the experience of knowing that the threats of those who would wipe us off the map must be taken seriously.

These are complex issues. To cite my family’s experience, the Soviets imprisoned my Zionist uncle in a cell with members of the Polish and Lithuanian anti-Soviet resistance; some relatives were deported to Siberia, others were saved from the Nazis by Polish collaborationist police who were secretly members of the Polish nationalist underground; still others were turned in by their Polish neighbors, and some were murdered by Lithuanian security police units; while others were saved by Red Army partisans but then kept as prisoners in the USSR for 12 years.

Mr. Zuroff ridicules the Lithuanian foreign minister for asking “How could it be that while some Lithuanians were risking their lives to save their Jewish neighbors, others were committing crimes by sending them to death?" Mr. Zuroff is right in saying that far more were committing crimes than saving neighbors. But the foreign minister is asking a central question: How did people in each of these countries choose sides and what can we learn from this process?

Finally, there is the question of the Jewish Communists, some of whom tortured and murdered local people—including other Jews—in the service of the Soviet secret police. Antisemites use this to stir up anti-Jewish hatred, just as the Nazis did (a point well made in Latvia’s museum on both the Shoah and their oppression by Germans and Soviet occupiers) . By refusing to deal with this issue we only help them do so. We should discuss this issue honestly. Just as the action of Nazi collaborators did not turn whole countries into war criminals, all Jews should not be held responsible for the deeds of a tiny minority. Moreover, these people did not act as Jews but as enemies of the Jewish people.

It is an important lesson for Jews to understand how some of their number betrayed them. Jewish Communists led the way in destroying the Jewish religion, language, and culture in the Soviet Union and satellite states. This is an important lesson for today where Jewish extreme leftists smear Israel and endeavor to hurt or destroy it.

In short, it is in our moral and political interest to join with Central Europeans in seeking to understand the truth about the past and its significance for the present. That includes acknowledging their suffering from both the Nazis and Stalinists during World War Two, and the latter for the half-century thereafter. One important element here is teaching about the costs and crimes of Communism in Western schools as well as the depredations of Nazism.

RubinReports: Victims of Dictatorship Unite: Why Central Europeans, Jews and Israelis Should Cooperate, Not Compete

RubinReports: Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

By Barry Rubin

The Obama Administration has now announced a policy shift expected ever since it took office: the cancellation of U.S. plans to put missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. There are two good arguments that can be made for this step, but there’s a counter-argument that makes it most worrisome.

Nominally, the missile defenses were planned to counter a possible Iranian missile attack on Europe. As such, and as the administration points out, they were dealing with a rather low-likelihood scenario. When President Barack Obama said, "Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," that is probably true in the strict sense of the word.

(By the way, one of the systems being used is the U.S.-Israel Arrow, a good example of the value of the strategic partnership between the two countries).

The second argument for the policy shift is that it will make Russia happy. The Russians view Central Europe, and countries like Poland and the Czech Republic as well as all the other states which once made up the Soviet Union or its satellite states, as their sphere of influence. For the United States to put missiles in two of those countries, even with the eager agreement of their governments, was seen as trespassing.

Here, though, questions can be raised. The most immediate reason why the United States would want to make the Russians happy is to get their cooperation on increased sanctions against Iran. With some other administration, one might suspect there is a secret deal to do so: a missiles for sanctions trade.

With the Obama Administration, however, unilateral concessions (we give now, show we are nice guys, and so you may give us something in future) seem to prevail and I doubt if there is any such arrangement. Indeed, I’ll bet that after swallowing this gift, Moscow will continue to oppose higher sanctions against Iran and will sabotage any that are put into place.

Governments are ill advised to give something for nothing.

The third issue is the effect on Central Europe itself. The Poles and Czechs took a real risk in agreeing to host the missiles. (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say they will get missiles some time after 2015 under the new plan but the Russians don’t seem worried this will ever happen.)

The suspicion in places like Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as those like Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, and a dozen other countries, is that the United States (or at least this president) won’t protect them from the Russian bear. To some extent, at least, they saw this small American military presence as insurance against Russian threats and see losing it as making them more vulnerable.

Republican critics of the administration stressed this aspect. For example, former presidential candidate Senator John McCain responded that this step "has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe." Senator Jon Kyl added: "The message the administration sends today is clear: The United States will not stand behind its friends and views 're-setting' relations with Russia more important."

This, too, is correct. The problem is not so much this specific decision but the context of the administration’s overall philosophy and behavior.

In addition, the Russians are putting a lot of pressure on neighbors that is rarely reported in the Western media: using energy supply leverage as blackmail, buying up strategic industries, making threats, interpreting history to say these countries should be part of Russia or under its sway, backing subversive forces, acting as protector of ethnic Russians in other countries, and making territorial claims.

A number of top Central European former policymakers thus addressed an open letter to Obama asking for his help in July and expressing their fear of Russian expansionism. To my knowledge, there has been no private response or public reassurance by the White House.

The Russians are not impressed at all by Obama and view him as a weak leader who can be stepped on. What the Obama Administration doesn’t understand regarding this point is that if Moscow views him as someone ready to give in on European issues they will also disregard his wishes on the Iranian problem.

So here’s a question: If the Russians continue to reject higher sanctions against Iran, how will the administration respond?

The White House may be right on the missile defense in terms of its technical merits but the Republican critics may be right on the political and psychological effect for Russia’s neighbors of this decision to cancel the missile deployment.

Oh, by the way, Central Europeans will notice--even if Americans don't--that this step comes precisely on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the act of aggression which most truly symbollizes the Russian claim to their countries as slaves or satellites. The Russian government is justifying this deed today, an action integrally linked to its continuing view of Central Europe as its property. This was a major public relations' mistake by the Obama Adminitration which adds insult to injury for the Poles and Czechs.

RubinReports: Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment