| When those planes knocked down the World Trade Center towers
they created world-political reverberations of which we are only beginning
to take the measure. Inevitably the United States was going to act. And,
given our military, economic, diplomatic and cultural strength, inevitably,
the rest of the world could not help but to react to our action. Now, 17
months on, we are still at the early stages of that action-reaction process.
But it is not too early to judge that the September 11 event has created a
historic discontinuity in the international order that may well turn out to
be of the magnitude of the French and Russian Revolutions or the First and
Second World Wars. The long-term strategies and relationships of the world's
greatest nations, which only recently seemed timeless, suddenly have become
dysfunctional. Smaller countries are scrambling to avoid danger, or grabbing
at quick opportunities.
It is not surprising that even the senior statesmen of the major
nations are performing unevenly -- even unsteadily. In the last few weeks,
for example, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer lost his temper in a
public meeting with Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In the U.N. Security
Council a week and a half ago, Sec. of State Colin Powell became overheated
in his extemporaneous comments. French President Jacques Chirac lost all
control last week in an EU meeting, striking out wildly at closely allied
nations (and experienced commentators got swept up in their comments on such
events). These are all vastly experienced, world-class statesmen who,
however they may act in private, are too professional to let down the mask
in public. And yet they did. Apparently, they couldn't help themselves. They
appeared to be unnerved by the fast-shifting events and newly unfamiliar
national relationships in which they found themselves. I don't mean to
denigrate their behavior. Even Winston Churchill admitted in December 1940,
when he was speaking to his old school, Harrow, that during the height of
the Battle of Britain that past summer, he woke up in dread of his day's
responsibilities.
The fact is that these waters are uncharted -- and are likely to
remain uncharted for several years to come in this journey in which the
world finds itself. It is an oddity of history that in such moments as
these -- when world history is shifting under our feet -- that even the most
experienced statesmen are, effectively -- inexperienced. Consider Dwight
Eisenhower in 1942. He had been a peacetime army colonel in Washington who
had never seen combat -- a speechwriter for General MacArthur. Within months
he was a four-star general responsible for beating Hitler while he managed
such personalities as Stalin, Churchill and DeGaulle. Or consider President
Franklin Roosevelt: a well-born former assistant secretary of the navy and
good-times governor of New York called on to lead the country through the
Depression and WWII. Certainly Abraham Lincoln, a railroad lawyer and former
congressman who had no professional experiences to match his stunning
responsibilities to save the union and fight a civil war. They, and others,
had personal qualities that saw them through their great responsibilities.
But they didn't have experience for managing unprecedented world historic
events -- no one did.
These outward losses of composure by Chirac, Powell, Fischer and
others almost certainly reflect an inner uncertainty about their
calculations and judgments. The estimable British Premier Tony Blair, who
only a few months ago was considered the most politically secure and
effective European leader, is dangerously close to being deposed from office
by his own party. France and Germany, who seemed destined to dominate the
European Union, suddenly find their hegemony contested by the United
States -- of all countries. We are slipping into the old British strategy of
keeping the continent divided by aligning with the weaker powers of the
continent against the strongest. (For centuries Britain would ally with
Germany against France or France against Germany, or Holland against Spain
or Austria against Russia, etc.) Now, under Sec. Rumsfeld's Old-New Europe
gambit we are aligning with Eastern and Central Europe, Spain, Italy and
Britain against France and Germany. The United States never before has been
forced by events to make such diplomatic calculations. It is unclear whether
Sec. Rumsfeld stumbled or marched into the new strategy. Whether it is a new
strategy or a temporary situation, no one knows yet. Whether the United
Nations and NATO can be salvaged -- and whether that is important -- remains
to be seen. It is in the nature of such unfolding events that every country
and all of its leaders and opposition parties are making it up as they go
along. Under such circumstances, we should allow for the inevitable
miscalculations and intemperate remarks -- and not necessarily assume the
worst. Regretfully, neither can we assume the best.
|