Robert Koehler, who lives in Seoul and does our outstanding Eyes on Korea regional briefings, has taken the time to translate a couple of Korean media interviews with American scholars Nick Eberstadt of AEI and Institute for International Economics Senior Fellow Marcus Noland.
I found both interviews uncontroversial and usefully informative as a going-forward overview, but apparently they've caused a bit of a storm in South Korea. Marmot begins to explain why, but this STRATFOR analysis re: Bush's re-election and its implications around the globe really nails it.
Thanks for posting this fascinating stuff. The North Korea posts are a bit too "inside baseball" for someone like me, without up to date in depth knowledge, to follow. But the Stratfor piece rang true--in my own inchoate way, I had similar ideas pre-election which led me into Bush's camp. Reading today's story about Euro responses to Arafat's death with Marmot's thesis in mind, it's hard not to see Fischer's veiled critique of the Palestinian leader as another creep away from Chirac's (irrational, laudatory) stance. The Germans may be salvagable; the French, probably not.
It raises the question of where the precise point of no return is with some of these countries--beyond which the long-term relationship with the US (as opposed to the short term administration specific one) is destroyed. France and South Korea are both stepping close to it, in my opinion. Where intractable political hostilities lead, public opinion and (eventually) business relations can't help but follow. The next year or two should reveal the start of some interesting trends.
Great finds - it'a slways interesting seeing how other countries cover America.
After reading the stratfor argument, sounds like as long as Bush isn't writing checks he can't cash, sounds like everyone has to do as he says.
On the other hand, maintaining hegemony is a difficult task, and the American weakness has always been overconfidence that no obstacle is too large to overcome.
Agree with paragraph #2. There are limits America will run into, and if I had to bet, I'd peg them as economic.
Job to be done, though, and let's see what position America can put itself in before it hits that point (if it does). When 9/11 is a $1-2 trillion hit, and another 9/11 type atack (or worse one with WMDs) will take a bigger number out, spending more now is disturbing to my conservative heart but less frightening than the alternative.
Keeping "NK" from standing for "Nuclear K-mart" is pretty high on the "what you have to do to avoid that scenario" priority list, so I liked Robert's post. We gotta talk more about Iran here, too.
America doesn't need lasting hegemony, just re-establishment of its deterrent and cooperation - unwilling if necessary - to do what needs doing.
As STRATFOR notes, the "friendly" Arab despots are not going to act fully against terrorism - at least, not willingly. 100% correct based on their records. The obstructionism of the EU, fueled by France and multipolar fantasies backed by nothing, falls into the same camp.
Diplomacy in these situations is saying "nice doggie" - with a big rock firmly in hand, and a dangerous glint in the eye. With Bush's re-election, the doggies are now focused firmly on the size of the rock.
Who knows? Maybe we'll get a trick or two out of them yet.