Customer Reviews

Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism And The Failure Of Good Intentions

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Quite simply put, this is the best book I've read on the status of the world in general, of its various hot spots in particular, of America's current role in them, and of alternative roles that it should rather play.

Prestowitz is a conservative Republican, a former member of the Reagan administration, and an elder of the Presbyterian church--scarcely the type one would expect to call America a rogue nation. But as a conservative he has very critical things to say about the neo-conservatives that currently control our foreign policy, whose agenda he says "is not conservativism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adventurism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism."

The book is a compelling answer to Kagan's popular "Of Paradise and Order," which tends to characterize America, through neo-conservative glasses, as the only agent that can save the world from itself, an agent that "by advancing [its] own interests ... advance[s] the interests of humanity."

Two very different views of America's role. Every thinking American should understand the difference between them.

"Rogue Nation" examines a host of issues on which the U.S. has found itself at odds with the world: free trade agreements, global warming, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the treaty to eliminate land mines, the creation of an International Criminal Court, the war on Iraq, and more. The book is valuable regardless of whether or not the reader agrees with Prestowitz's politics (he's a longtime conservative and a former Reagan administration official) or his opinions on environmental, economic, and foreign policy concerns. Indeed, it's often hard to pinpoint the author's place on the ideological spectrum. For example, many conservatives will disagree with his support of several international agreements discarded by the Bush administration. Both conservatives and liberals will be dissatisfied about his ambivalence on the need for the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Many liberals will be turned off by his statement that, as of March 2003, "there is little choice for the United States and whatever partners it can gather to overthrow Saddam and occupy Iraq."

What troubles Prestowitz, however, is not America's international policies per se but the manner in which we pursue those policies--a manner that may not always meant to be arrogant but certainly seems to be to the rest of the world. What especially distresses him are certain unilateralist principles proposed and implemented by "neoconservatives" like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In a way, it's too bad that Prestowitz chose such a deliberately provocative title, since the book itself, while undeniably opinionated, makes considerable effort to present both sides of every issue. Yet he correctly acknowledges that much of the international community regards the United States as a "rogue nation"--whether we are in fact or not. Likewise, the author contends that, although we are not technically an empire, we often behave like one--or, just as important, appear to others to have imperial pretensions. In a world where perception is reality, Prestowitz argues, it is foolish not to be concerned about international opinion, since we depend on other nations as much as they depend on us for both economic well-being and domestic security.

Above all, Prestowitz proposes that America's people and its leaders become better listeners--and Prestowitz himself is an astute listener. He has interviewed an impressive number of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and government officials, and he faithfully presents their views even when he seems not to concur. What matters less to the author is how accurate international opinion is about American intentions or plans. Instead, he strives to understand how they arrive at contrary judgments: he provides historical context for various controversies and describes events, blunders, and misunderstandings that tend to support such mistrust.

He also contends that Americans often seem to treat other nations as inherently inferior or, even more insultingly, that we seem to feel that other cultures would be better off if they became just like us. As Prestowitz notes, "Nations are very much like individuals. More than desire for material gain or fear or love, they are driven by a craving for dignity and respect, by the need to be recognized as valid and just a valuable as the next person or country." Rather than forcibly imposing our lifestyle on reluctant populations, we would be far more productive in providing a model worthy of admiration, "a city on a hill"--especially since most of the world's peoples greatly admire Americans themselves while they regard our government's policies with increasing suspicion.

Prestowitz's treatise is enhanced by a riveting journalistic style, an impressive array of evidence, and a lucid synthesis of a variety of foreign policy issues. I don't always agree with his views or his conclusions. For example, while I support his argument that we should greatly lessen our military presence in the Persian Gulf, I don't buy his assertion that shrinking our dependence on Arab oil would cut off funding for terrorism. (Although a reduction in oil imports would offer many other benefits, the implication that boycott or impoverishment would reduce terrorism seems questionable.) Yet, even when one disagrees, the book is still informative and challenging, and I found his overarching thesis to be irrefutable: America cannot survive this century on its own, and we cannot continue to act as if we can.

In response to 9/11, Bernard Lewis bloviated in "What Went Wrong" (with respect to the Islamic world), that when things go wrong for you, you can either say: "who did this to me" and point the finger at someone else, or; you can ask "what did we do to ourselves and how do we fix it". There is a third question, however, that Lewis doesn't ask- "what have we done to them (that they feel the way they do)". Clyde Prestowitz does exactly that.

Many readers may think this book the rantings of a left-wing ideologue, but for the fact it comes from a conservative. Prestowitz was a US trade negotiator under the Reagan Administration and possesses conservative values on par with any Reaganite.

Rogue Nations examines the inconsistency between what America preaches versus America's conduct, implemented through our policies. His ability to understand arises from his experience as a negotiator; i.e., one, who by profession, must listen and understand the other side in order obtain what he wants for America. This skill in listening serves him well because he presents to the readership the admiration and disappointments of others with America's behaviour.

Prestowitz begins with a very interesting point about America itself. He believes America is a religion. The American idea, articulated so well in the Bill of Rights, inheres in every citizen an idealism and vision that every person in the world can grab onto and believe regardless of race, religion, and gender. More importantly, is the belief that if "America" is good for us, then it must be good for everyone else and should be exported. Prestowitz discovers through conversations with Prime Ministers, Ambassadors, trade negotiators and business people around the world is that while the rest of the world truly admires American the idea (and Americans), it simultaneously resents us. The problem, as perceived by world citizens, is that what America wants for itself, many times, it will not afford to others. America possesses a certain religiosity about its ideals conferring a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism in comparison to the rest of the world-and there is the rub. Americans think they deserve the richness, wealth and resources other nations possess (oil, for one) because we are exceptional. Our way is the best way, if not the only way. We believe we are a chosen people possessing a manifest destiny to shape the world in our image and that creates resentment around the world.

The book is basically organized by policies and reveals how these policies affect other countries to their detriment and to our benefit. Chapters include international financial policy (and explains how IMF policy led by US policy makers and financiers exacerbated the Asian financial crisis); arms, military manufacture and military consultancy and how we weaponize the world (often selling weapons to both sides of a conflict); American subsidies (and how it destroys third world economies because they lack the financial assets to subsidize their own industries); environmental policies and the Kyoto treaty (and how America brought the world on board regarding environmental cognizance only to then discard treaties of our own instigation to the consternation of Europe); foreign policy and interventionism (He nicely demonstrates where and how we intervened in the domestic policies of other countries by installing dictators or engineering coups to the detriment of locals); domestic policy and Washington lobbies, specifically how the pro-Israel and pro-Taiwan lobbies affect foreign policy, often to the detriment of America's long term interests.

America has spent the last two years acting, by Bernard Lewis's standard, pointing the finger at others and saying "who did this to us." Clyde Prestowitz boldly challenges this mindset by asking America to understand how its actions abroad affect other and to take responsibility for it; to have the wisdom and humility to see the folly of our current and past acts, and to possess the courage to make changes accordingly.

Prestowitz's solutions for bringing American prestige, honor, and good-will back from the brink are based on pragmatism and fairness (50 years of Kissingerian manipulation is a losing long term proposition). His recommendations overturn the hypocrisy of our policies in light of our preachings to the rest of the world. More importantly, he prescribes solutions not out of self-hatred for America (the favorite accusation from the Right about those on the left), but from the desire to see America live up to its true potential-to BE the shining city atop the hill.

Clyde Prestowitz bears conservative credentials, as evidenced by his position as a trade representative in the Reagan Administration and his self-acknowledged life long status as a Republican. This reflective work demonstrates that he knows far more about what conservatism traditionally encompasses than the frantic neoconservatives of the Ann Coulter and Mona Charen stripe.

Prestowitz persuasively argues that the bedrock of conservatism is evolutionary growth. Traditional conservatism differs from traditional liberalism basically on emphasis and government experimentation, with the liberal being more willing to resort to government action and the conservative adopting more of a "prove it to me that it works posture." As Prestowitz notes, traditional conservatism adheres to upholding and building upon international law and the framework of existing traditions. It is a philosophy that also adheres to a civil libertarian posture on civil liberties, totally apart from the philosophy of Bush-Ashcroft of incarcerating first and asking questions later.

Conservative leaders of the past such as Dewey, Eisenhower, Willkie, Nixon and Ford favored strengthening American ties through international institutions such as the United Nations and alliances in which America is a willing partner rather than a ruling master. Eisenhower was so staunchly opposed to the idea of preventive war that the former supreme allied commander of World War Two stated bluntly as president that he did not even care to talk to anyone who espoused the dangerous idea.

In order to contrast Prestowitz alongside the neocons of the Bush Administration, who abhor international cooperation and flaunt unilateralism in an aggressive form, it is interesting to examine the roots of some of the most ardent Bushies, which extend to Trotskyism. A conservative is careful about uprooting tested tradition while the neoconservatives call for abrogating treaties and keeping their gun powder ready, indicating a readiness to attack unilaterally. Prestowitz is a true conservative while the neocons are dangerous radicals operating under the bogus agenda of liberation and freedom.

In a world increasingly defined in simple stark contrasts of black and white, for us or against us, and good and evil, noted conservative author and social analyst Clyde Prestowicz adds some much needed perspective that both explains why the rest of the civilized world increasingly views us with suspicion and alarm, on the one hand, and why we are reacting to this seemingly new state of world affairs with dismay and righteous indignation. While we Americans are rightly outraged by the events surrounding 911, our reaction as though we were the only nation, or even the first nation, to experience such outrageously murderous attacks by terrorists is not correct; nor is it a helpful tact to use in then attempting to justify international military action against a foe we have not so far demonstrated had any role in such terrorist attacks. Based on this set of dangerous actions as well as a number of other unilateral actions, which collectively seem to signal a profound political indifference on our part toward legitimate international interests and concerns.

Thus, we thumb our noses at the United Nations and international law by unilaterally attacking Iraq, in defiance of agreements with the United Nations an NATO on the one hand, and in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Treaty Of Westphalia as well. After nearly ten yeas of painstaking efforts by politicians from 46 countries to define, negotiate, and finalize the so-called Kyoto Accords, a set of international agreements to slow down the degradation of the environment and help mitigate a multitude of problems associated with air, water, and ground pollution, the Bush administration suddenly reversed the course of the two previous administrations and refused to recommend ratification of the accords. Moreover, we also unilaterally abrogated from participating in the International Criminal Court system, and walked away from the mutually binding agreement with the former Soviet Union not to develop or deploy anti-ballistic missile defense systems. From stem to stern, the Bush administration seemed to be telling the world that it was our way or the highway.

In so doing, Mr. Bush has done much to convince the world the USA cares only about ourselves. And it is this issue regarding the differences in our policies and our perceived consciousness of ourselves that the author mines such a provocative essay on what it means to be an American in today's complex and permanently interdependent world, and what we must understand about the rest of the world in order to act in a way that serves both our own interests and considers theirs as well. We must reconcile our self-image as the champion of freedom and liberty with our actions abroad, supporting democratic institutions instead of paying mere lip service to doing so while forging alliances with despots, dictators, and military juntas. More than anything, we must reassure our allies and friends abroad, from France to Japan, from Australia to Canada, and from China to Germany, which we are the defenders of freedom and liberty we claim, and that we are not attempting to foist onto the world a new century of American hegemony. This book is essential reading for concerned American citizens, and one that derives a lot of credibility based on the author's impeccable conservative credentials. Enjoy!

This book should shake the very foundations of the White House, because it is the first really well-documented discussion of--as the title defines--why America under the neo-conservatives has become a rogue nation. However, it is important to emphasize that at the institutional and cultural level, the author's critique carries backward to the Clinton Administration and forward to all but one Democratic candidate (Bush Lites).

I consider it extremely important that the author is a conservative Republican, Christian, and patriot with a proven track-record as head of the Economic Strategy Institute--a man who understands what moderate Republicans have been trying to tell the incumbent all along: fiscal prudence, no deficit, multilateral treaty adherence, these all provide for stability. If Bush is worried about 12% of the Republicans voting for Dean, after this book is read and absorbed by the educated and moderately-well off Republican base, he should start thinking in terms of losing 25%. This book is political and economic DYNAMITE.

In ten thoughtful chapters, all well-sourced and well-indexed, and complemented by a *superb* five page list of additional recommended reading, the author lays out, with objective precision and a clear love of country extant throughout, why American unilateralism and all we have done since 2000 has been "stupidity, arrogance and ignorance in the exercise of power."

His early use of Webster's definition of "Rogue" as "deviant, having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition" not only suits the unilateralist Bush team perfectly, but makes it clear that in objective terms, as perceived by the rest of the world--not just the Middle East, but the responsible Asian powers as well as what Rumsfeld revealingly denigrates as "old Europe"--the USA is indeed a "rogue nation."

A few small quotes capture the value of this work, which I have heavily marked-up and which I recommend be read carefully, every word, by anyone contemplating their vote for November 2004 and beyond:

According to former EU Ambassador to the US, Hugo Paemen: "...while your intentions are usually good, your actions are frequently informed by ignorance, ideology, or special interests and can have very damaging consequences for the rest of us."

One Latin American Ambassador is quoted as saying, "The United States mistrusts the whole world. It relies only on military force and has no vision of itself working with others."

Other authorities quoted by the author characterize US national security and foreign policy as "ambivalent", defined by "inconsistency and neglect."

The author is especially strong on documenting the inconsistencies and incoherence of the over-all US national security strategy, and brings his special competency in international economic strategy to bear. He says, "An important aspect of the American empire is that because Americans don't see it as such, few look at the totality or thinking about where it is going and what it needs, and certainly no one is in charge. This inattention creates neglect and incoherent, often contradictory policy initiatives."

Taking Africa in particular, a continent that Henry Kissinger says will be the ultimate test for US policy (see my review of "Does America Need a Foreign Policy"), the author is brutally candid: "In West Africa, the face of American-style globalization and free trade is not the hope-inspiring one of Colin Powell, but a harsh, hypocritical one that inspires a drift to radicalism and perhaps to terrorism. The cost of dealing with that would, of course, far exceed anything spent on subsidies or aid."

Skipping over the many other excellent and honestly presented thoughts the author presents in this book, which is a "must read, right now" book, I will end with three quotes that capture the urgency and relevancy of this book to the future of the Republic.

At the top of page 277: "The imperial project of the so-called neoconservatives is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adverturism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism. Real conservatives have never been messianic or doctrinaire. The very essence of conservatism, which the neoconservatives constantly preach, is limited government. Yet the imperial project they are proposing will greatly increase the role of government both at home and abroad. ... This is not conservatism. It is Big Government."

At the bottom of page 281, "The procedure of American foreign policy badly needs to be reviewed. It is terribly damaging when one or two powerful congressional chairpersons can dictate U.S. policy, despite a lack of significant public support. Even more importantly, the question of who decides when America goes to war desperately needs to be clarified. Congress seems to be less and less involved. But America was not meant to be run by a Caesar." [The author goes on to discuss how a more democratic and openly derived holistic national security strategy would not only resolve the instability associated with mis-directed globalization, but also address the fundamental: water scarcity, disease, deforestation, soil depletion, and overpopulation.]

On page 284, the last page, "Particularly, I would like to remind my fellow Christians of the words of Oliver Cromwell, who enjoined in a letter to the Church of Scotland, 'In the bowels of Christ, please believe that you may be wrong.' As an elder of the Presbyterian Church, I [the author] want to emphasize that Christ was no about nations and power, and did not spread his gospel by force. ... Politicians who use God as prop for their campaigns should remember that 'God is not mocked.' An America that stressed its tolerance rather than its might, its tradition of open inquiry rather than its way of life, and that asked for God's blessing on all the world's people and not just its own, would be the America the world desperately wants."

This book brought tears to my eyes. This is a great book, a worthy book, and the author merits our most earnest and respective attention and appreciation.

Despite the provocative title that might lead the reader expect a book that describes how awful the US is, this book actually provides a discourse that demonstrates how silly the description really is and provides a fair and balanced view of the topic.

Rather than run with the assumptions that the increasing number of people around the world that are unhappy with the United States have become so because of jealousy and fantasies of former glory the author instead looks at the way the US has handled itself in the world and compares it to the virtues the US tends to espouse showing the frequent contradictions that have been raising eyebrows around the world.

Much of Prestowitz's strong analysis is coupled with anecdotal comments from people abroad who are generally friends of the US but find that position increasingly difficult to justify. The author's vast experience in international circles has led to the perspectives of an interesting range of people.

This book is not so much about laying blame although there's a little bit of that but it does collect a broad range of major events from throughout recent history and pulls them together giving the reader a sense of what shapes opinion abroad.

The reader may not agree with the conclusions that Prestowitz draws, but that's not what this book is really about -- it's an excellent read (and a relatively easy one) for those folks who want to understand how America is viewed and will inevitably help the reader come to his or her own conclusions that may or may not agree with his about what should be done.

I first heard about this book listening to the book's author promoting it on some news radio show, and the next week I saw it in the book store and started reading it on a whim. I finished it in three days.

Clyde Prestowitz, the author, is an old diplomat who's seen the last three decades or so working in Europe and Asia, when he wasn't advising presidential administrations. The thing that impressed me the most about the book was Prestowitz's calm, objective (although not disinterested) viewpoint. Although he tackles issues like globalization, the economy, and the Middle East, he refrains from pointing fingers, or at least from blaming any one group in particular (one of the stronger rebukes comes down on the "professional left" and college protesters). He is also a devout Christian, which is sometimes a thing I hold against people, but in this case, every time he opens his mouth on the subject it actually strengthens his case. (I especially liked his use of the quote "I can only render unto God what is God's and unto Caeser's what is Caeser's"). He is focused, but not fanatical, and if he delivers blame it is only after a long period of analyzation and thought, which I guess is what made him stand out from the other authors on the shelves, most of whose books had titles like Useful Idiots or Stupid Right Men or Why the Left Hates America or Blinded by the Right. Most importantly, he stays away from the "I'm right and you're stupid" attitude that pervades most political mediums today.

The primary focus of the book is American foreign policy, not only in the post-September 11 era but since the Cold War. His message is that America is alienating the world through an increasingly standoffish attitude and a growing unwillingness to consider different viewpoints. To solve it, he says, America must swallow a measure of its pride and become a good "neighbor on the block" or risk becoming an enemy of every nation, friends and foes.

I have an excerpt from the conclusion of the book, where Prestowitz comes down hardest on the "neoconservatives". This is one of the only times in the book where Prestowitz actually delivers blame on a particular group.

"The imperial project of the so-called neoconservatives is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism and adventuratism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditonal patriotism. Real conservatives have never been messianic or doctrinal. The very essense of conservatism, which the neoconservatives constantly preach, is limited government. Yet the imperial projects they are proposing will greatly increase the role of government, both at home and abroad ... This is not conservatism. It is Big Government".

On the whole, though, I found this book fascinating and thought-provoking, and I'd recommend that every person, whether they are an American or not, read it, if only to know what they're disagreeing with.

Clyde Prestowitz's credentials make him an unsuspected analyst of America's unilateralist policies. As a genuine fan of the USA, its core values and the determination of its people to create a real Nation, it is sad to observe the binary assumption of President Bush "You're either with me or against me".

Mr. Prestowitz gets straight to the points that may have allowed America to become the world's superpower, but, to some extent, have created the roots of anti-Americanism and terrorism.

As I went through this magnificent book, I though to myself: "Maybe the American people will be the ones to use their ultimate weapon, and that's bound to happen in November '04, when Bush's term will be judged. With a slow economy, Iraq an unresolved nightmare, and the fear of terrorism, maybe voters will do the job, to the benefit of the world".

Not only does this book give a well-balanced view of current foreign policy issues, but it does something that I don't believe any other foreign policy book has attempted: it explains to Americans why we are perceived the way we are by other countries, but most importantly, explains to the world why America does the things it does. Though critical, it is not a knee-jerk ideological reaction to US foreign policy (it maintains a remarkable degree of objectivity), but a prescription for becoming a better international player.