Apple Inc (AAPL)

[tarmar]

Might vs Right

I thought others might enjoy reading this point of view from the editorial pages of today's Atlanta Constitution-

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1203/17_contracts.html


'Little Red Hen' approach to Iraq likely to lay an egg


Last week's announcement that countries such as France, Canada, Germany and Russia can't bid for reconstruction contracts in Iraq is more than just another tactical error by the Bush administration. It epitomizes the administration's amateurish approach to foreign policy and, indeed, to all questions of power and how it should be used.


The Bush team has defended its decision with what might be called the Little Red Hen argument. In Iraq, the United States and its allies have planted the wheat, harvested the wheat, ground the wheat and baked the bread, while the French and Germans looked on. So why should they now get to eat the bread?


There's admittedly a rough justice to that logic, but that's not how the policy should be judged. The real question is whether it's smart. Does the psychic pleasure of publicly snubbing countries that have criticized us compensate for the renewed animosity that we've created, particularly at a time when we need the cooperation of those countries in other matters?


How you answer depends on how you approach foreign policy. The Bush administration believes that the United States, with its unquestioned global dominance, can pursue whatever policy it chooses and that other nations have little choice but to fall in meekly behind us. Those nations who do not accept our dominance will be treated accordingly. Under that philosophy, last week's announcement was not merely appropriate but, in fact, necessary because it establishes our clear willingness to discipline any nation that might stray from our lead.


In fact, President Bush expressed that attitude perfectly when asked last week whether the policy might violate international law.


"International law?" he said. "I better call my lawyer. I don't know what you're talking about, about international law."


The alternative approach, the wiser approach, would be to pursue not dominance but primacy. American primacy recognizes that the United States is and ought to remain the most powerful nation in the world. But primacy also implies a legitimate role for other nations. We are first, but we are first among equals, so to speak. We recognize the need to compromise, to abide by international law, to operate through consensus that we guide and create.


Primacy is admittedly hard work. It not only requires you to confer with others; you actually have to take what they say seriously. But if carried out wisely, primacy has its advantages. If others are allowed to shape decisions, for example, they incur a share of the responsibility as well.


On the other hand, if you insist on being dominant, if you want to call all the shots and make all the decisions, that freedom of action also comes with a price tag. It will be your troops who die, your taxpayers who foot the entire bill. When you make a mistake, you are responsible for cleaning it up. Over time, dominance also inspires widespread resentment and fear. It encourages the creation of alliances against you, even among nations that have little in common other than a wish not to be dominated.


The invasion of Iraq was envisioned and implemented by those who think in terms of American dominance. But in recent weeks, seemingly humbled by the difficulties we've encountered and the hope of spreading our burden, the Bush administration had begun to act as if it might be rethinking the relative merits of those two approaches. It had opened the door to a greater role for the United Nations, for example, and had politely asked other nations to forgive the billions of dollars in debt owed by Iraq.


The contract announcement, however, indicates a reversion to true form. For Bush and others, the push for U.S. dominance is not a carefully thought-out policy that might be altered as geopolitical realities change. It is instead a product of character.


Indeed, the insistence on dominance rather than primacy in international affairs is mirrored by an identical approach to dealing with Congress and other domestic institutions: Cooperation and negotiation are for weaklings. Those who fall in line -- whether it's an industry that coughs up campaign donations or a country that does what we say -- will be cut a piece of the deal. Those who don't are subject to punishment.


That's no way to run a country, and no way to run the world.