|
|
 |
 |
4.2 US-Außenpolitik
|
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp
?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=78
49
Patrick Seale glaubt, dass die USA einen radikalen außenpolitischen Wandel benötigen. "At the heart of America's failure lies the administration's refusal to recognize that the contemporary roots of Islamic terror are to be found in American policies. Although the whole world sees terrorism as essentially a response to US policy, senior American officials - and particularly the neoconservative friends of Israel among them - angrily reject any such link. For them, hostility to the US is the product of backward Muslim societies, "failed states" and an inherently violent religion. It has nothing to do, they argue, with America's wars or Israel's brutal occupation. More effort should be made, they say, explaining American values to Muslim opinion! (...) Not only is this approach fundamentally wrong-headed, but it provides the US with an alibi for not addressing the "roots of terror" - that is to say the anger, desperation and rampant political grievance which cause men and women to want to hit back against their tormentors, even at the cost of their lives." |
|
|
|
http://morgenpost.berlin1.de/archiv2004
/040830/politik/story700378.html
Torsten Krauel meint, in der Politik George W. Bushs eine "klare Agenda, wie er das Land weiter führen will", zu sehen. "George Bush hat nicht nur den Irak oder Afghanistan verändert. Bush ist auch ein ungewöhnlich aktiver innenpolitischer Präsident. Er hat in manchen Bereichen eine Revolution aus dem Geist der Business School durchgesetzt. Das Land ist über seine Taten gespalten, weitaus stärker als zu Bill Clintons Zeiten. Aber es diskutiert über Inhalte und Konzepte, nicht wie vor vier Jahren über Praktikantinnen und Sex. Dieser Wahlkampf ist von Sachthemen bestimmt." |
|
|
|
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/
articles/2004/08/29/now_for_the_hard_pa
rt/
Walter Russell Mead beklagt, dass die politischen Parteien in den USA die außenpolitischen Empfehlungen des Abschlussberichts der 9/11-Kommission völlig ignorieren würden. "Those recommendations, which appear in Chapter 12 of the report, entitled "What To Do? A Global Strategy," go far beyond reforming the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community. They lay out a plan for fighting and winning the war on terror. (...) These are the issues the presidential election needs to be about - but so far neither presidential campaign seems to want to put them front and center. Senator Kerry, who says he has accepted "all" of the report's recommendations, hasn't said whether the recommendations in Chapter 12 - which amount to the first systematic attempt by a bipartisan group to develop a new grand strategy for a new kind of war - are included in that blanket endorsement. President Bush, for his part, has said surprisingly little about how he will prosecute the war on terror if he wins a second term." |
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com
mentary/la-oe-hunter27aug27,1,6727536.s
tory?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Robert E. Hunter ist der Ansicht, dass die US-Regierung auf jeden Fall verhindern muss, dass Iran eine Nuklearmacht wird. Ein Militärschlag sei aus vielen Gründen zu riskant, noch sei allerdings Zeit, eine Lösung auf diplomatischem Weg herbeizuführen. "The U.S. focuses almost exclusively on measures to prevent Iran's acquiring weapons of mass destruction and pays little attention to why Tehran would pursue that course. At least in part, it could lie in Tehran's sense of acute vulnerability. Thus, we need to focus on that as well as working to affect the Iranians' cost-benefit analysis. This means convincing them that they have something vital to gain from foreswearing the nuclear option -- a "something" that goes far beyond the economics of civilian nuclear power." |
|
|
|
http://www.merkur.de/aktuell/po/fa_0435
.html
Der "Rheinische Merkur" mit der Übersetzung eines Beitrages des republikanischen US-Senators Chuck Hagel für "Foreign Affairs". "Sieben Prioritäten für den nächsten Präsidenten - aus der Sicht eines republikanischen Transatlantikers (...) Herausgefordert von Terrorismus und scheiternden Staaten, muss sich Washington bewähren. Ohne Hybris, ohne Missionsdrang. Sondern mit Vernunft und mit Verbündeten." |
|
|
|
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/art
icle-2-2061.jsp
Paul Rogers bezeichnet die weltweite Umgruppierung amerikanischer Truppen und die Wiedereinsetzung des "Committee on the Present Danger" als Maßnahmen der US-Regierung, die den Fortgang des gegenwärtigen "Krieges gegen den Terror" auch nach einem möglichen Sieg John Kerrys sicherstellen sollen. "Now [the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD)] has been revived, with the Soviet menace easily and smoothly replaced by Islamic terrorism. (...) The question remains as to why the CPD should have undergone a rebirth just at a time when defence budgets are up and Bush's "war on terror" is being pursued with such vigour. What is the point of speaking to the converted? There are probably two explanations. The first is that the war itself is not going as well as expected, with US forces deeply mired in Iraq and unable to bring al-Qaida under control. (...) The second reason may be more subtle, and speaks to a longer-term strategy of recognising the possibility and implications of a John Kerry victory in November. (...) a Kerry administration would bring in a range of more liberal advisers from The Brookings Institution and other think-tanks, and the neo-conservatives would certainly lose some influence in and around the White House - hence the need to prepare for the possibility."
|
|
|
|
http://www.iht.com/articles/535719.html
Wird sich die von vielen Beobachtern erwartete "Oktober- Überraschung" der US-Regierung als Angriff auf den Iran herausstellen? William Pfaff nennt einige Gründe, die für diese Entwicklung sprechen. "(...) one theory says that making the war bigger would make it better for U.S. forces, since what is going on now is "the wrong kind of war." The U.S. has troops and tools for "real" wars, the kinds it wins, and should move on from today's disastrous affair of suicide bombers and kids with rocket-launchers. The temperature has been rising between Washington and Iran over the latter's alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Some former U.S. officials concerned with Middle Eastern policy suggest that when President George W. Bush must eventually explain what has gone wrong in Iraq, it might be convenient to blame Iran." |
|
|
|
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082604A
.shtml
Vielen neokonservativen Vordenkern der US-Regierung kommen Steve Weissman zufolge angesichts der Kämpfe in Nadschaf Zweifel an den Erfolgsaussichten der USA im Irak. "Many neo-cons fault Bush for the way he pursued what they thought was their war. Fiascoes do that, creating an intense yearning to run from blame. (...) Robert Kagan and others at the neo-con flagship The Weekly Standard have criticized Team Bush for not sending enough troops to make Iraq secure and not turning power over to Iraqis more quickly. Kagan and editor William Kristol strongly condemned the regional caucuses that Bremer tried to use to preclude real democratic elections, which the Shia were certain to win. (...) But the biggest slam has come from one of the neo-cons' leading intellectuals, Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History." Confronting columnist Charles Krauthammer, who recently proposed that the United States pursue an interventionist policy of forcefully promoting global democracy, Fukuyama flat-out rejected the major neo-conservative arguments for going to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein never posed an immediate threat to the United States, he declared. And the United States lacked the "nation-building" know-how to make Iraq democratic."
|
|
|
|
http://www.merkur.de/aktuell/po/fa_0435
.html
Chuck Hagel, Vertreter der Republikaner im US-Senat und Mitglied des Auswärtigen Ausschusses, stellt sieben Punkte auf, die der nächste US-Präsident beachten sollte. "Die Terrorangriffe vom 11. September 2001, die fast 3000 Amerikaner das Leben kosteten, kennzeichnen eine neue Ära und einen Wendepunkt in unserer Geschichte. Terrorabwehr muss die oberste Priorität des Staates sein und daher im Zentrum einer republikanischen Außenpolitik stehen. Aber der Krieg gegen den Terrorismus kann nicht für sich allein betrachtet werden, ohne die weiter gefasste Krise des Regierens in der modernen Welt. Das gilt besonders für den Nahen Osten." |
|
|
|
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17406
Peter W. Galbraith analysiert in seinem ausführlichen Beitrag die zahlreichen Fehler, die von der US-Regierung und der amerikanischen Zentralverwaltung im Irak begangen wurden. Es gebe auch gegenwärtig kaum Zeichen für eine Verbesserung der Strategie. ""Realism" has replaced democracy and nation-building as the central concern of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is having trouble defining and carrying out a realistic policy. As with its previous triumphalist policy, the problems with the new, realistic, policy come from ignorance of Iraq's history and society." |
|
|
|
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_
968288,00120002.htm
Welche Auswirkungen werden die amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlen auf Indien haben? Abhishek Singhvi meint, dass in den außenpolitischen Positionen von Bush und Kerry mehr Gemeinsamkeiten als Unterschiede zu erkennen seien. "But here is an interesting conundrum. Traditionally, Democrat presidential candidates have had larger support in India than Republicans. (...) Since India is clearly more left-of-centre than the US, our subconscious bias in favour of Democrats is not surprising. The conundrum is that Republican presidents have probably been more pro-India than Democrats. (...) Clearly, the Republican practice of 'unilateralism' in foreign policy coupled with Bush Jr's Rambo-like approach to Iraq in particular, contrasts badly in Indian perception with the Democrats' focus on 'multilateralism' and global cooperation. This is the real reason for Bush's unpopularity relative to Kerry in India, albeit concrete gains for India during a future Democratic administration are far less likely than during a Republican one." |
|
|
|
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion
=0&article=50433&d=25&m=8&y=2004
James Zogby empfiehlt den Lesern der "Arab News" einige Romane, die zum besseren Verständnis der politischen Machtkämpfe in Washington beitragen würden. "I am sometimes asked to recommend books that provide useful insights into American politics. Over the years I've had my favorites. (...) if you want a different experience and have time to read only one book this summer, I would recommend The Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson. (...) Arab world readers will want to pay special attention to Patterson's treatment of the operations of the powerful gun lobby, and how it utilizes a combination of its organized membership and its ability to target significant amounts of campaign contributions to leverage both Republican and Democratic support for its political positions. Those outside of the political process often fail to understand that many issues acted upon by Congress are not decided on merit or even consideration of national interests. Rather, they are shaped by the power politics of special interest lobbies." |
|
|
|
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Sha
hidAlam0824.htm
M. Shahid Alam schreibt, dass die ideologischen Grundlagen des "Krieges gegen den Terror" der US-Regierung in der These vom "Kampf der Kulturen" zu finden seien. "The Clash thesis and the associated war on terrorism carry little or no credibility outside the United States. (...) The bogey of America's 'global' and 'unending war' on terrorism will soon face another test. While the United States and its neocolonial allies have incarcerated thousands in Gulags spread across the world - without charges and without recourse to law - the 'war against terrorism' has produced very few convictions for terrorist crimes against the United States. If the al-Qaida is indeed a formidable adversary, with a global reach, and with sleeper cells in the United States itself, trained in the manufacture and use of WMDs, its failure to launch even a single operation against the United States since September 11, 2001, poses a problem for the credibility of the 'war against terrorism.'" |
|
|
|
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articlei
d=3429
Pat Buchanan, konservativer Republikaner und Kritiker der Bush-Regierung, schreibt in seinem neuen Buch "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency", dass die neokonservativen Berater des US-Präsidenten ihn nach dem 11. September 2001 geradezu erpresst hätten. Justin Raimondo kommentiert: "Buchanan believes that Bush was basically an empty vessel waiting to be filled, and I concur. He describes the neocon takeover of the Bush presidency as essentially an act of subversion (...) Buchanan shows how the small clique of neocons in this administration moved within hours of the 9/11 terrorist strike to divert the president's anger, and the nation's, toward Iraq, rather than Osama bin Laden. He strongly implies that the neocons exercised a thinly-veiled threat to abandon the president if he didn't take immediate action against Saddam Hussein: "Nine days after an attack on the United States, this tiny clique of intellectuals was telling the President of the United States and commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be publicly charged with a 'decisive surrender' to terrorism."" |
|
|
|
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,31
4387,00.html
Der "Spiegel" berichtet ausführlich über die unterschiedlichen außenpolitischen und militärischen Konzepte George W. Bushs und John Kerrys. "Im Kern aber dreht sich der Konflikt zwischen Bush und Kerry darum, wie die beispiellos überlegene Weltmacht ihre einzigartige Rolle wahrnehmen soll. Präsident Bush ist ein bekennender Unilateralist - Amerika soll sich Handlungsfreiheit unter allen Umständen bewahren. Der Herausforderer gibt sich im Gegenzug als Multilateralist zu erkennen - Irak versteht Kerry als Musterbeispiel, wie imperiale Arroganz den Rest der Welt zum Schaden Amerikas verprellen kann. Er will die Verbündeten mit der Supermacht versöhnen, betont er immer wieder." |
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar
ticles/A17134-2004Aug19.html
Viele Kritiker werfen der US-Regierung Robin Wright zufolge vor, den Kampf um die "hearts and minds" in der arabischen Welt nie wirklich aufgenommen zu haben. "On its boldest policy ideas, such as the Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative, the administration has limited its follow-through or deferred to the very governments that have most resisted democratic reforms, specialists and some U.S. officials say. "It's worse than failing. Failing means you tried and didn't get better. But at this point, three years after September 11, you can say there wasn't even much of an attempt, and today Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. and the degree of distrust in the U.S. are far worse than they were three years ago. Bin Laden is winning by default," said Shibley Telhami, a member of a White House-appointed advisory group on public diplomacy and Brookings Institution scholar." |
|
|
|
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commen
tary/story/0,4386,267929,00.html?
Der angekündigte amerikanische Truppenabzug aus Europa und Asien sollte nach Ansicht von Doug Bandow vom Cato- Institut ein erster Schritt zu einer vollständigen Auflösung der ausländischen Militärstützpunkte der USA sein. "(...) even if trans- atlantic ties loosened, the US would be better off. America's alliances are mostly security black holes, with Washington doing the defending and allies doing the carping. Withdrawal would force friendly states to take full responsibility for their own defence, which would enhance US security. Why are Americans patrolling Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, which are of only peripheral interest to Europe, and of no concern to the US? Japan should take on a front-line role in deterring potential Chinese adventurism. Why does Washington treat populous and prosperous South Korea as a perpetual defence dependent?" |
|
|
|
http://www.slate.com/id/2105295/
Phillip Carter erläutert in seinem Beitrag aus gegebenem Anlass noch einmal die Ursachen und das Ausmaß der ständigen US-Stützpunkte in Europa und Asien. |
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar
ticles/A9784-2004Aug17.html
Ronald D. Asmus fürchtet, dass der von Präsident Bush angekündigte teilweise Truppenabzug aus Europa und Asien langjährige Koalitionen gefährde. "The reasons are fairly simple. In Europe after the Cold War, the United States decided to significantly reduce its former troop levels but to leave sufficient military forces on the ground to accomplish three objectives: help ensure that peace and stability on the continent would endure; have the capacity to support NATO and European Union expansion and project the communities of democracies eastward; and provide the political and military glue to enable our allies to reorient themselves militarily and prepare, together with the United States, to address new conflicts beyond the continent's borders. Each of these goals remains important. Each will be undercut by the president's plan. (...) In Asia the stakes are just as high and the challenges perhaps greater. There the United States faces the long-term challenge of managing the rise of China as a great power. North Korea's eventual collapse and the unification of Korea will raise the question of that country's future geopolitical orientation. And such seismic events will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on the evolution of Japan's role and orientation as well. (...) The president's plan is unfortunately further evidence of the strategic myopia that has afflicted this administration and is undercutting the United States' standing in the world. |
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/
ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040818/CONATO
18/TPComment/TopStories
David S. Wright glaubt dagegen, dass die Umverlegung amerikanischer Truppen überfällig sei und die internationalen Koalitionen der USA keineswegs gefährden würde. "(...) the transatlantic link remains crucial. For many European countries, especially those for which freedom is relatively new, it is at the heart of their sense of security. What will happen to U.S. leadership in NATO? In my view, that leadership never depended on the numbers of troops stationed in Europe, but on U.S. willingness to commit substantial resources to Euro- Atlantic security endeavours, and on the U.S. ability to build consensus with its allies. (...) The U.S. decision does not mean that the Americans are losing interest in Europe or Asia. It reflects reprofiling to meet contemporary threats, including terrorism and ethnic conflict. Most of these demands can be met more cheaply by U.S.-based soldiers, ready to be deployed quickly to trouble spots, predictable and unforeseen." |
|
|
|
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/
story/0,6903,1283373,00.html
William Pfaff zweifelt daran, dass ein im November gewählter Präsident Kerry einen Ausweg aus der Krise im Irak finden würde. Damit könne es Kerry ähnlich ergehen wie seinen Vorgängern Johnson und Nixon, die den Vietnam- Krieg von Kennedy "geerbt" hätten und daran scheiterten. "The intervention in Iraq is the latest in a 50-year series of American politico-military interventions into the internal affairs of non-Western countries, none of which has been a success. Most were failures. The consequence of failure in Vietnam unseated the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Revolution in Iran and defeat in Lebanon in 1983 seriously damaged the Carter and Reagan administrations. This year, Iraq may defeat George W Bush. Why should John Kerry wish to be next? But on present evidence, this is likely to become the case." |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/opini
on/14kristof.html
Nicholas D. Kristof mit einem weiteren Beitrag zur Bedrohung der USA durch einen atomaren Terroranschlag. "So what should we be doing? First, it's paramount that we secure uranium and plutonium around the world. That's the idea behind the U.S.-Russian joint program to secure 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials. (...) A second step we must take is stopping other countries from joining the nuclear club, although, frankly, it may now be too late. North Korea, Iran and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Brazil all seem determined to go ahead with nuclear programs. (...) A third step is to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the U.S. Mr. Bush has made a nice start on that with his proliferation security initiative. (...) Finally, Mr. Bush needs to display moral clarity about nuclear weapons, making them a focus of international opprobrium. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is pursuing a new generation of nuclear bunker-buster bombs. That approach helps make nukes thinkable, and even a coveted status symbol, and makes us more vulnerable." |
|
|
|
http://www.iht.com/articles/533727.html
Rajan Menon, Politikwissenschaftler an der Lehigh University, warnt die US-Regierung davor, mit der Unterstützung für das Regime in Usbekistan alte außenpolitische Fehler zu wiederholen. "Radical Islamist movements are not unknown in Uzbekistan. The poor, densely populated Ferghana Valley is particularly receptive to Islamic political doctrines. And the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, whose key leaders have been captured or killed, was tied to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet a government that knows how to rule by force alone, and that hounds political parties that are hardly proponents of terrorism or violence, begets the very radicalism it fears. You might think the United States had learned a lesson or two from its previous encounters with dictators. But in Uzbekistan, it looks like America could soon be implicated in a familiar quandary yet again." |
|
|
|
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commen
tary/story/0,4386,266442,00.html?
Danielle Pletka vom neokonservativen Think-Tank "American Enterprise Institute" wirft dem demokratischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten John Kerry vor, die Stabilisierung des Nahen Ostens vor eine weitere Demokratisierung der Region zu stellen. Dabei würde er sowohl die Realität als auch die aktuellen Chancen in der Region ignorieren. "It's not 1989 in the Middle East and a series of velvet revolutions aren't on tap for the immediate future. But the intellectual firepower that underlies any such revolution is growing; the region is in the throes of genuine pro-democratic ferment. (...) Ferment is not change but Mr Kerry and his advisers may be kidding themselves that an incipient upheaval can be turned off just by Washington whistling another tune. More likely, without change, the US will face one collapsing dictatorship after another and an instability much greater and more threatening than any that would come from an aggressive American push for democracy. He would be wiser to try to see the world as it is - and realise that hoping the US can impose an unchanging 'stability' on the Arab world may be the greatest unrealism of all." |
|
|
|
http://www.iht.com/articles/533052.html
Lawrence J. Korb glaubt, dass die US-Regierung nicht genug gegen die Weiterverbreitung von Atomwaffen unternehmen würde und deshalb die Sicherheit der USA gefährde. "Since taking office, the administration has taken a number of steps that have undermined the ability of the United States and the world community to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But given the fact that Bush agrees with most analysts that the greatest danger facing the United States is a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a rogue state or terrorist group, his actions are counterproductive and defy good sense." |
|
|
|
http://www.welt.de/data/2004/08/07/3156
77.html
In der "Welt" fragt Robert Kagan, was von dem "Pazifisten" John Kerry im Falle seiner Wahl zum US-Präsidenten zu erwarten sei. "Mit dem Pazifisten John Kerry sind humanitäre Interventionen nicht zu haben". |
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar
ticles/A29204-2004Jul30.html
John Kerrys Anmerkungen zur amerikanischen Sicherheitspolitik auf dem Parteikongress der Demokraten in der vergangenen Woche lassen Robert Kagan vermuten, dass ein Präsident Kerry einen neuen Isolationismus verfolgen würde. "For someone who professes to seek better relations with the rest of the world, Kerry's doctrine of necessity would base American foreign policy on narrow, selfish interests far more than the alleged "unilateralism" of the Bush administration. Some Europeans have been quietly worrying that what they consider Bush's overambitious foreign policy will be followed in the United States by an isolationist backlash. After hearing Kerry's speech, they may worry a bit more." |
|
|
|
|
|
09. Februar 2010
|
|
Bestellen
Themen
Publikationen
Veranstaltungen
Wissen
Lernen
