<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Anxieties and absurdities
Review: A couple of centuries ago, essayists voiced opinions in newspapers or pamphlets. Some, hidden in anonymity, could counsel protest and sedition. Today's freer societies allows the writer to drop a mask hiding identity. Voicing opinions openly is easier. The downside is that it may take a whole book. And the problems appear to be looming far larger than they were long ago. Examining foundation causes takes more ink. In this insightful study, Benjamin Barber applies the best essayist's style to address the issues underlying today's American expansionism. A nation that once based its relationship with other nations on the promise that it would never start a war, has adopted an unilateral adventurist role. And that new identity has far outstripped in time and scope any historical precedent. The entire globe is threatened with becoming "Americanised". Why should that be happening?
With clear, incisive prose Barber examines the roots of the values held in the United States and how those are being manifested in its "foreign policy". Once, it was important to Americans that society be governed by "the rule of law". This commonly-used and nearly trite phrase reflected both the foundation of compromise among the States embodied in the US Constitution and in how Americans interacted with other nations. The attitude created a sense of moral superiority to American dealings with other nations - an attitude Barber labels "exceptionalism". This high sense of self-worth carried the American population across the continent. Who else could coin a term like "Manifest Destiny" to sweep aside indigenous peoples in creating a contiguous empire?
Once the North American landmass was occupied, according to Barber, the United States could sit smugly isolated from the remainder of the planet. Two global conflicts, which the Americans viewed in absolutist terms, eroded the notion of "isolationism", but didn't erase the concept of "exceptionalism". With the high moral fervour it adopted in pursuing two world wars, the United States has entered on an expansionist programme, accellerated by the attack on the World Trade Centre. That assault gave the Republican incumbent administration the impetus to use fear in two directions - within the United States and beyond its borders.
Are Bush's foreign policies derived from his cabal of "neo-con" advisors? Barber dismisses that notion. Bush, he says, is sufficiently motivated by a strong belief in America's "missionary rationales" and "exceptional virtue". With the power available to enforce those values elsewhere, Barber demonstrates how Bush is able to divide the world into "Manichean camps" of good and evil. From that stance the President has convinced enoughAmericans that foreign intervention is just and proper. It allows him to sacrifice troops in a flawed campaign to force democracy in Iraq at gunpoint while retaining domestic support. Using fear at home allows Bush to instill fear abroad. Barber insists that all that military might driven by a sense of dread, real or manufactured, is a threat to global security. If American hegemony isn't sustainable in today's conditions, what can restore stability?
Barber reminds his readers of US leadership in forming the United Nations. He notes that the theme of "internationalism" of the post-WWII era was too vague and utopian. The fear of eroded "national sovereignty", he argues, should be replaced by a new, pragmatic idea - "interdependence". Interdependence recognises that all nations have their own interests. Like the collection of States making up the US, Barber's proposed framework would work through mutual respect and compromise. Bush's assault on Afghanistan and Iraq shows how far the US has moved from its post-war ideals. "Independence", as currently expressed in the US' exceptionalist framework, is a false mythology. Barber wants it replaced by a realistic outlook. "Pax Americana", reflective of the "Pax Romana" of the Roman Empire, is unsustainable. It is nothing more than an expression of power which must ultimately fail.
If we must adopt labels, Barber argues, then let us adopt "lex humana" or a rule of law for all people. Barber suggests the US learn to cope with "preventive democracy" - variations of the American model applicable to different cultures. He offers examples of democratic societies that aren't blind imitations of what the US practices. For numerous reasons, other societies cannot simply copy the US blueprint. They must build with their own materials and plans to build similar structures of equal strength. The only aspect of this book lacking is the mechanism by which one man might be convinced to shed the false mythologies he's operating under - and dragging the American people with him. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Review of Gaetan Lion's Review
Review: I've been thinking of reading this book; Reading Gaetan Lion's negative review convinced me to go ahead, since in my view Lion's polemic overreaches. This is one way I decide whether or not to read or not read books -- by profiling the reviewers and analyzing their polemics.In more than 100 reviews on Amazon, Lion writes in a concise, informative way, giving generally balanced in-depth reviews. But something in this book peeves him. I wan't to find out what it is, since his overt criticims just don't seem justified to me. In his review, Lion criticizes Barber for failing to recommend specific solutions to the Jihad vs. McWorld dilemma. Lion finds Barber's "preventative democracy" too unspecific. I would suggest that the principles of preventative democracy are so simple that Barber felt no need to elaborate. Brainstorming a few as fast as I can type and think: 1) Pay for election monitoring processes (UN does this well)
2) Support micro-loans, a well known economic strategy
3) Do not send weapons systems to dictators, this just distracts
them from trying to become more democratic.
4) Give grants for internet infrastructure to increase the
power of free media in countries where there is little
5) Do not train military advisors from countries that do not
practice democracy.
6) Support religious freedom
7) Increase cultural exchanges with so-called "bad" countries
to allow democratic ideals to penetrate their insularity I don't understand why Lion faults Barber for omitting specifics as a wide slate of democracy-enhancing programs is well-known. Lion also writes, strangely that "[Barber] forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." In my view, the historical reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current hot spots, is that most of US funding went into speculative military alliances, not democracy making or nation building. Specifically, 1) In Iraq, funding went to support a CIA coup and install and sustain Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years as tyrannical dictator of Iraq, complete with Stalinist purge (and execution) of parlimentary members. The US helped arm Hussein with chemical weapons (which he used with delight against the Kurds), fund his war against Iran in retaliation for the Islamic radicalism inspired there by US support of another dictator, The Shah. This aid was not, as Lion suggests, preemptive democracy, but preemptive dictatorship support. "Check out the details: http://208.39.216.125/news/2003/12/5936.php The war cost is currently at 95 billion dollars. So when Barber suggests using multilateral democratic persusion, it seems obvious to me that he means spending that 95 billion not on war, but on democracy-making alternatives. After all, if we are going to spend 95 billion dollars, we should invest it in democracy. That's the point. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's so much more cost effective to support fledgeling democracies than fight failed dictatorships. Way more cost effective. It's like Head Start. Every dollar in up front pays itself off four times over in future costs. 2) In Afghanistan, the US funded the Taliban against the Soviet Union; At the time, the President's CIA men bragged at what a neat strategy they had cooked up, blending fanatical, fundamentalist Islam with militarism to create a guerilla army that defeated the USSR in the first Mother of All Battles. After the US defeated the Taliban though, they just migrated to Pakistan, where they continue today in huge numbers. We still have the Taliban, only they're in Pakistan. One wonders what would have happened if Afghanistan had simply waited out Soviet domination for a few more years and then gone independent when the rest of the Eastern Block of the USSR broke up. In essense, both countries manipulated USA cold war paranoia. The pretended to be our friends just long enough to get enough aid and arms to take over their countries, though they disguised this as it was happenging. Once they had won their battles though, the psychological inertia of the shadow warrior state took over, along with a tyrannical facism (Iraq), and fundamentalism (Afghanistan). One interesting futurism: Barber is an advisor on foreign affairs to democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, potentially the next president of the United States. If Dean is elected, we are going to be hearing alot more about Mr. Barber. He could potentially even be appointed Secretary of State. Read the book, and see what you think. Kip Leitner
Rating:
Summary: Review of Gaetan Lion's Review
Review: I've been thinking of reading this book; Reading Gaetan Lion's negative review convinced me to go ahead, since in my view Lion's polemic overreaches. This is one way I decide whether or not to read or not read books -- by profiling the reviewers and analyzing their polemics. In more than 100 reviews on Amazon, Lion writes in a concise, informative way, giving generally balanced in-depth reviews. But something in this book peeves him. I wan't to find out what it is, since his overt criticims just don't seem justified to me. In his review, Lion criticizes Barber for failing to recommend specific solutions to the Jihad vs. McWorld dilemma. Lion finds Barber's "preventative democracy" too unspecific. I would suggest that the principles of preventative democracy are so simple that Barber felt no need to elaborate. Brainstorming a few as fast as I can type and think: 1) Pay for election monitoring processes (UN does this well)
2) Support micro-loans, a well known economic strategy
3) Do not send weapons systems to dictators, this just distracts
them from trying to become more democratic.
4) Give grants for internet infrastructure to increase the
power of free media in countries where there is little
5) Do not train military advisors from countries that do not
practice democracy.
6) Support religious freedom
7) Increase cultural exchanges with so-called "bad" countries
to allow democratic ideals to penetrate their insularity I don't understand why Lion faults Barber for omitting specifics as a wide slate of democracy-enhancing programs is well-known. Lion also writes, strangely that "[Barber] forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." In my view, the historical reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current hot spots, is that most of US funding went into speculative military alliances, not democracy making or nation building. Specifically, 1) In Iraq, funding went to support a CIA coup and install and sustain Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years as tyrannical dictator of Iraq, complete with Stalinist purge (and execution) of parlimentary members. The US helped arm Hussein with chemical weapons (which he used with delight against the Kurds), fund his war against Iran in retaliation for the Islamic radicalism inspired there by US support of another dictator, The Shah. This aid was not, as Lion suggests, preemptive democracy, but preemptive dictatorship support. "Check out the details: http://208.39.216.125/news/2003/12/5936.php The war cost is currently at 95 billion dollars. So when Barber suggests using multilateral democratic persusion, it seems obvious to me that he means spending that 95 billion not on war, but on democracy-making alternatives. After all, if we are going to spend 95 billion dollars, we should invest it in democracy. That's the point. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's so much more cost effective to support fledgeling democracies than fight failed dictatorships. Way more cost effective. It's like Head Start. Every dollar in up front pays itself off four times over in future costs. 2) In Afghanistan, the US funded the Taliban against the Soviet Union; At the time, the President's CIA men bragged at what a neat strategy they had cooked up, blending fanatical, fundamentalist Islam with militarism to create a guerilla army that defeated the USSR in the first Mother of All Battles. After the US defeated the Taliban though, they just migrated to Pakistan, where they continue today in huge numbers. We still have the Taliban, only they're in Pakistan. One wonders what would have happened if Afghanistan had simply waited out Soviet domination for a few more years and then gone independent when the rest of the Eastern Block of the USSR broke up. In essense, both countries manipulated USA cold war paranoia. The pretended to be our friends just long enough to get enough aid and arms to take over their countries, though they disguised this as it was happenging. Once they had won their battles though, the psychological inertia of the shadow warrior state took over, along with a tyrannical facism (Iraq), and fundamentalism (Afghanistan). One interesting futurism: Barber is an advisor on foreign affairs to democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, potentially the next president of the United States. If Dean is elected, we are going to be hearing alot more about Mr. Barber. He could potentially even be appointed Secretary of State. Read the book, and see what you think. Kip Leitner
Rating: 
Summary: Boring is the most complimentary description.
Review: If rational you be, avoid this book. If you are long suffering or long for suffering in your fearful hope of the future, then this book will help you on the road to believing that repeating historical socialistic subservience to the world is the essence of hope! This guy has been in and worked in an institution his whole life... and you know why people are in institutions, don't you? It's comfortable to harbor you imaginings and believe they are real because nobody disagrees with your conclusions derived from your sylogistic reverie.
The description tells the truth ... "Barber argues for an America that promotes cooperation, multilateralism, international law, and pooled sovereignty." POOLED SOVEREIGNTY!!! MULTILATERALISM!!! The code words 'promote cooperation' means, we will be a doormat for you... He thinks the United Nations is a great example of effective multilateralism and cooperation... so does Khadaffi and Mugabe and Kim Jung Il and Arafat and young Asad and Al-Turabi (Sudan). Those are some fine folk to select from for your next 'sovereign leader'!
This is the same tripe that has floundered center stage since Philby's Band of Brothers went to rot in Moscow. It's that same pig with more lipstick, persistently begging the citizens of the world for a kiss and a hug.
Save us all from another Fulbright academic tri-lateralist! I'm an American, and I am repulsed by the concept of being a "citizen of the world".
Rating:
Summary: One of the most reliable criticism of American unilateralism
Review: JIHAD vs. McWorld was good, but this is much better! Above all the author well understands the importance of what George Washington once emphasized as a maxim of American Foreign Policy: international coordination. What the Bush Administration has done so far is almost reversal of the heritage. Preventive war (means nothing but invasion) not Preemptive war, list of 'Rogue States,' democratization with missiles, etc. Only 10 out of about 200 countries reluctantly follow the U.S. The author excellently illuminates such endangering America. Really brilliant! I am convinced that Prof. Hoffmann also recommends.
Rating:
Summary: Reality + Willingness = Vision, Inspiration and Hope
Review: This book is a marvelous peace of work.
This book discusses the current strategy of our nation within Middle East.
The book offers long term solutions for the Jewish, Muslim and Christian and other states for international law and peace.
The book also discusses the key roles for Democratic states in establishing socio-economic stability for world peace .
Long term solutions are discussed for combatting and or eliminating terrorism with joint states.
The book also offers a guide for shaping Sentimental/political reforms with economic, and educational justice.
It is a roadmap for Israel/US/India/Pakistan and surrounding countries within the region for Peace and Prosperity.
Dr. barber has been requested to speak at prestigious educational and government institutions around the world.
Rating:
Summary: The right prescription
Review: This book was welcome follow-up to Benjamin Barber's famous book Jihad vs. McWorld and in it he expands on the themes of already established in that book. In many ways the first book foretold the present foreign policy challenges faced by the 'North'and the 'Sout'h'. However, unlike harsher dialectics proposed by Samuel Huntington and more recently Richard perle in his draconian solution to world problems featured in the lamentable but unequivocably harsh "An End To Evil", Barber does not speak in terms of black or white. His approach is well reasoned, and differs in tone even from other alternative, or so called 'liberal' texts that criticize America's current foreign policy approach. Barber writes with reason and suggests that rather than exporting democracy and markets, the more priviliged world under America's leadership should be engaged in the building of citizens and civil society first, for it is on that basis that lasting democracies are built. I found the book became more interesting and engaging in the second half where the argument against the idea of a preventive war, turns into an argument against the éxport'of democracy for the creation of the right structures and circumstances that help to build and sustain democracy in the developing world. This is an important work that should be read by all those who wish to understand - reasonably and without hyperbole - the dangers of America's current foreign policy
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting foreign policy analysis. But, utopic solutions
Review: This is another rebuttal of Bush foreign policy. And, Barber is an excellent critic. According to Barber, unilateralism is out, preemptive wars are self defeating and dangerous, and the focus on preempting nuclear capabilities of rogue nations is futile. In other words, the whole war on terrorism is a costly and dangerous escapade that will not reduce terrorism, but instead exacerbate it. Barber's opinion is very popular right now, and overall dominates the media, especially the European one. Barber was strongly opposed to both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. He states that the only reason we invaded these countries was to fight terrorism. Again, Barber has the polls on his side, as his views on this topic are really conventional. However, Thomas Friedman, Robert Lewis, and other luminaries say this is a gross oversimplification. Both countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) were governed by totalitarian inept governments that were quickly destroying the economic base of their respective countries. Also, lack of adequate social policies promoted rampant demographic growth in both countries. With a rapidly shrinking economic pie, and rising population, the GDP per capita plunged to desperate levels. Meanwhile, both countries practiced the politics of deflection. Instead of addressing any of their domestic problems with intelligent domestic policies, they blamed all their ills on the Great Satan, the U.S. This message was further brainwashed in the head of youth through a collapsing educational system. With a growing and frustrated youth population without employment prospects, the ranks of terrorists swelled rapidly throughout the region. So, there are many very good reasons why we have triggered regime changes in these countries. This is in addition to the well known human rights and women's rights issues that were tragic in both countries. Obviously, you will not learn any of the above within Fear's Empire. This is because it effectively contradicts Barber theories. Barber also makes an interesting case that democracy always fails when it is imposed from the outside. Again, he has the polls on his side as most people believe that. But, a study of history suggests it is not true. Three cases in point include Japan, Germany, and South Korea. All three countries would not be democracies today if it was not the result of external forces. Barber is not as good a strategist, as he is a critic (of Bush foreign policy). In other words, his solutions to the foreign policy challenges in a post 9/11 world are much less impressive. His solutions rely on cosmetic dialectic jargon with vague historical references absent of any substance. For instance, Pax Americana reflects Bush foreign policy enforced through unilateral military power in a similar way as the Romans did two millennia ago (Pax Romana). Instead, he suggests Lex Humana which promotes a multilateral approach which entails the U.S. giving up a significant amount of sovereignty and power to supranational institutions. However, a study of history suggests that the nation who has the power does not relinquish it readily. Also, he would replace preventive wars with preventive democracy. Preventive democracy consists in supporting the advent of democracy worldwide through soft power means including education. Barber says that the terrorists are so much better at using education as a weapon than we are. He mentions the Wahhabi schools in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that teaches an extremist version of Islam which include an unconditional hatred of the U.S. What Barber does not explain, is how we could peacefully practice "preventive democracy" and change all the history textbooks in Mosques schools throughout the Middle East to promote a more factual and balanced historical view of the West, and the U.S. in particular. Most of other Barber recommendations are typically equally utopic. He forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And, we don't have much success to show for it. The level of civil unrest, political corruption, Islamic insurrection throughout the region is such that democracy never took root. Barber's recommendation assumes that all of a sudden Middle Eastern governments would recognize on their own the merit of democracy (which typically runs against the ruling government self interest) and so would terrorists. In terms of foreign policy, it is a lot easier to criticize that whatever the White House Administration is doing is wrong, than to come up with a viable alternative. Benjamin Barber certainly has not.
<< 1 >>
|
