Kishore Mahbubani’s article, “The Case Against the West” and Tony Judt’s artile, “What Have We Learned, If Anything,” shed an unflattering light on recent Western activity on the global stage. Mahbubani insists that the West is not only refusing to cede its international dominance to the rising Asian powers, but that its failure to do so is causing it to become the “major source of [global challenges].” Judt is similarly critical, but focuses instead on the Western duty to examine its recent past (from which it has thoroughly separated itself) in order to more clearly analyze its present.
Unfortunately, Mahbubani’s portrayal of the United States is, for the most part, quite accurate. He highlights the U.S.’s hypocrisy in urging Iran and North Korea to follow UN Security Council resolutions after invading Iraq, an operation executed illegally without the Security Council’s authorization. He expands upon this American double standard in regard to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT, stating that “the NPT’s principal progenitor, the United States, decided to walk away from the postwar rule-based order it had created,” and continuing, “the treaty could only really be enforced by the UN Security Council,” which the U.S. had ironically already illegitimated. I found it shocking that the United States proceeded to increase “both the quantity and the sophistication of their nuclear weapons” during the Cold War.
However, I found Mahbubani’s claim that, “the United States and Europe no longer have a vested interest in the success of the East Asian economies,” misleading. The U.S.’s economy is thoroughly intertwined with that of China and Japan, as China’s artificially cheap currency is currently the source of many American qualms. He continues to exaggerate, stating that the “U.S. fears that [China] is striving for global hegemony.”
I thoroughly agreed with Mahbubani’s commentary on the U.S.’s part in the global warming crisis, to which we are the main contributor but also “the greatest resistance to any effective action.” A wealthy nation responsible for 29% of the world’s total emissions of carbon dioxide should, indeed, be taking a leadership role in reducing the effects of global warming.
Mahbubani touches also on the sensitive subject of torture, accusing the former proponents of human rights of becoming violators. Tony Judt’s article, “What Have We Learned, If Anything?” fortifies Mahbubani’s argument, reminding us “it was precisely that claim, that ‘it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good,’ which until recently distinguished democracies from dictatorships.” Although I am highly skeptical that the U.S. is in danger of falling into the hands of a dictator, Judt has correctly determined that the U.S. would benefit from examining its recent past, as well as the recent past of the international community, in order to achieve greater understanding of its present. Judt’s insistence that the U.S. cannot truly comprehend the devastation of war since it has never fully been its victim is highly logical. Although we are certainly justified in supporting our troops abroad, can we properly appreciate the consequences of our military endeavors if we have never experienced them?
Both Judt and Mahbubani effectively identify Western weaknesses in today’s world. However, while Mahbubani urges the West to remove itself from future global powers, Judt argues that the West could ameliorate its situation by reflecting on the past. I am more receptive to Judt’s opinion: although I do believe that the Western world needs to reassess its role in the international scene, I do not see complete retreat from worldly affairs as an appropriate solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment