A Canary in the Coal Mine for U.S. Global Leadership?
10.28.2013 at 01:15pm
A Canary in the Coal Mine for U.S. Global Leadership? By Kathleen McInnis, War on the Rocks.
As recently as the 1980s, coal miners would carry a canary with them as they dug their quarries deep in the earth. Canaries are sensitive to toxic gases such as carbon monoxide and methane; the birds therefore became a kind of early warning system. When a canary started to show signs of distress, miners knew that they were entering a danger zone.
The Obama administration appears to have dodged a bullet with respect to two critical issues: intervening in Syria and budgetary default. However, as the dust starts to settle, real questions are emerging abroad as to whether the canary is croaking for U.S. global leadership…
“Madhu?”
“Yes?”
“Did you ever see the following on Pundita’s blog?:
America is a giant dreaming it’s a midget — and here I’m speaking of land mass and population size, not ‘civilization.’ Of course Americans owe a great deal to European civilization, but two world wars and Nato, along with a huge influx of Europeans to American universities and Washington after WW1, meant that U.S. defense/foreign policy began to reflect the strategies and tactics of the middle child in a large family — which is how small European nations have had to survive each other.
.
The upshot is that we have not created a distinctly American defense/foreign policy. For a generation we had a Natoist policy, but once the European Union rose up, we became a minority of one (the Canadians had the Commonwealth) at Nato despite our superior military power and wealth. So then the thinking of U.S. policymakers came to reflect the views of the European Union, which is where we are today.”
“Yes. She’s got a point. This is always an uncomfortable topic for Americans. Americans are essentially a bit lonely, what with the exceptionalism and all. We need reassurance.”
“But what about Iraq and Afghanistan? We are a mess!”
“Absolutely. The thing of it is, domestic politics tears many nations up on foreign policy. It’s not just the US. Our long relationships with NATO and other smaller nations with respect to defense and foreign policy means that we are subject to their internal domestic disorders too.”
“For instance?”
“Immigration policies and the voting blocs on foreign policy that come with them, trade with the Saudis, Chinese, the Gulfies, Commonwealth relationships, you name it.”
“But the US is bigger. Surely our domestic politics is more important than theirs?”
“Yes and no. It depends on the issue. If it’s important to an ally but sort of peripheral to us, we can be influenced intellectually and emotionally. And yes, we do it too.”
“Oh, come on.”
“Well, I haven’t time at the moment but I will try to add some more substance to this topic when I have more time. Europe as a collective is incredibly wealthy. The sort of collective security many yearn for depends on how well their security interests overlap with ours. With the Soviet Union gone, it now becomes a game of catching the eye of the would-be protector, to which we now add the relationships to China. Part of the reason the would-be protector is tired is that we are asked to do our job within certain parameters. Of couse, outside of them hasn’t really worked out either, lately.”
“We really screwed up the past decade.”
“Sure. But some of our alliance relationships haven’t made it any easier. They create policies which increase disorder to which we are to respond as global leaders. This isn’t anything against the people or their brave militaries or diplomats or anything like that. I wager, if anything, many ordinary citizens within those nations are as disgusted with their elites as they are with ours on foreign and trade policy. State is particularly bad on this sort of stuff, but as we have seen with the military and its fetish for mil-mil relationships as a be-all and end-all instead of one prudent option, it’s sort of in the water everywhere in the region of the Potomac.”
As one who is residing in Germany I would venture the following comment—if in fact the canary is defined in this case as the NSA—this canary has set back US foreign policy 20 years.
I have never seen the seriousness expressed in newspapers and news programs as well as the anger on the European wide massive NSA surveillance.
In this case the canary did not warn the President that he is rapidly becoming unbelievable in the eyes of many Europeans and European politicans.
Did the NSA think German politicians were members of the Taliban?
Did the NSA somehowe forget that the German history until 1945 and after 1945 with the DDR Stasi had somehow been forgotten?
The canary maybe still alive, but US foreign policy in Europe has been badly damaged to the point that the President does not have enough time left in order to repair it so the belief that canaries can save one is questionable.