An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Centrism, NATO and China: the New World Order – if We Want One

Why the West should keep Russia close, and get a backbone as it faces China: and how one global political trend will help us do it.

There was something remarkable about the statements of Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s Sarkozy, who said that they would, respectively, boycott and reserve the right to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

Such a boycott exhibits the more typically Anglo (read American and British) trait of rooting foreign policy explicitly in ethical considerations.

On their own, these statements wouldn’t signify much, but they are symptomatic of a crucially important shift in global politics that has so far gone largely un-remarked upon. The shift is the potentially powerful convergence of the developed world toward the political center.

This shift was forcefully indicated by Sarkozy’s stunning speech in Britain last week, which praised Britain thus;

Your nation has succeeded in taking up so many challenges which seemed out of reach precisely because it quite simply was convinced that its cause was right, because it had faith in itself, in its values, because in all circumstances it has demonstrated an unfailing determination and courage.

He went on to praise Britain’s contractual freedoms, the dynamism of its metropolises, its valuing of effort, encouragement of innovation, its spirit of enterprise and sense of personal responsibility

In other words, he praised all of the qualities of a healthy free-market economy – without a shade of the European socialism that has historically crippled elements of French society. Many Americans, also “Anglo”, would recognize these positive qualities in their own nation.

In one remarkable sentence, Sarkozy repositioned the politics of France – one fifth of the permanent members of the UN security council! – when he said,

“No one will ever forget that the name of Europe’s first father was Winston Churchill” –a half-American Briton, as Anglo as they come.

From a Frenchman, that’s a stunner.

The other important formerly left-ish European power is Germany. Yet, not only will Merkel be boycotting the Olympics: she is also heading up overdue free-market reforms in her country.” Both France and Germany, then, have moved from the left at least to the “free-market” center, and find themselves as politically close to the U.K. as ever.

And then there is the U.S.: with the departure of Bush, it will move leftward, which is also toward the political center. (Bear in mind that the political center in Europe could be considered somewhat center-left in the U.S.)

In other words, at of the end of ’08, the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany will be closer politically and philosophically than they perhaps have ever been. Along with Japan, a political and economic ally, this group comprises five of the seven largest economies in the world. This political closeness represents a great strength and great opportunity.

The greatest long-term geo-strategic challenges to this group of five and its allies, are China and secondarily Russia.

Right now, NATO is troubled over whether to admit Georgia and the Ukraine, two former Soviet Republics. Russia would regard their membership as a broadly hostile act. And that’s something of which we need to be very careful, because we must not create or strengthen a Sino-Russian axis.

The Chinese are coming. But although they are strong, a “centrist” developed world will have the strength to stand up to them for good if the Russians are facing West.

Right now, the developed world fails to stick to its principles if doing so would offend China. We seem so scared of China – or rather, of losing what it gives us – that only for China do we compromise ourselves so much. Our stance on Taiwan remains perhaps our hemisphere’s greatest hypocrisy, as we fail to support its right of self-determination. Moreover, we’ve failed to have an impact on freedom of speech and worship in China. And now that Tibet is raging, we cannot to act, even if (though?) we want to. China is our shame.

But like a planetary convergence, the aforementioned centrist convergence of the developed world could portend great things – if we so choose.

We make that choice by pursuing a grand vision in which Russia is our ally. Unlike China, Russia is a nation with whom NATO closely shares its modern history. Making an ally of Russia will not only eliminate one of the two greatest strategic challenges (or even threats) to the West (Russia), but will also help us in dealing with the other (China).

In other words, the West must plan to invite Russia into NATO.

With Russia as one of us and a political convergence of the developed powers toward the center, we will finally be able to stand up for ourselves, our allies and our principles – against the Chinese where necessary.

(Robin Koerner runs Watching America, which translates foreign news about the U.S. from around the world)



3 Responses to “Centrism, NATO and China: the New World Order – if We Want One”

  1. runasim says:

    There are many reasons to avoid having Russia as an enemy, and there are many reasons to want a warmly cooperative relationship When it comes to making Russisa a close ally, however, I would urge caution. For one thing, you can hardly call Russia centrist.
    I think, also, such an alliance with Russia would lead us to the same kind of moral dilemmas that we have in re China when it comes to human rights issues.
    If we don't say much about the killing rate among Russian journalists now, we would be in an even weaker position were Russia a declared ally.

    We would also be put into an awkward position when it comes to Russia's ex-Soviet bloc neighbors in Europe. We are timid about Taiwan becuse of China, but such an alliance would hardly make us strong when it comes to Russia's disruptive, even menacing activities in those areas. The cyber attack on Estonia is one of the few such instances reported in the West, but its efforts to indimidate those countries are ongoing and continuous. How will we dole out our aleegiences then?

    This is complicated, and the complexities must be thought through before announcing wedding banns.

  2. PaulSilver says:

    Is it really necessary to choose between alliance with Russia or China? Don't we want to have access to Russia's commodities and China's human resources?

    It seems to me that the more pressing split is between modern economies and third world breeding grounds for rouges.

    With China, perhaps encouraging a reconciliation with Taiwan is the more efficient best path towards moving China closer to political freedom and thus a closer global partner.

  3. runasim says:

    Paul,
    We don't have an 'alliiance' with China; we have an economic relationship.

    Perhaps I mistunderstood, or maybe it's a question of sematnics, but I take an allieance to be someting much stronger. Examples: the EU, NATO.
    At the very least, I would expect allies to stand together on international issues.
    So far, trade relationships on thier own haven't produced much in the way of political alliances

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity