The Herald is a fairly moderate newspaper and in general could be said to express the views of mainstream Australia. This article appeared in it today, which I thought was interesting. Any comments from anyone?

I think that it reflects mainstream European - except perhaps for the line: "Now, the Clinton years are derided as a time of irresolution, half-baked humanitarian interventions and limp responses to terrorism."

I think that most Europeans saw Clinton as one of the best post-war US Presidents to have graced the Whitehouse. And while the line: "And when Clinton did intervene on the side of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, he did so with such reluctance that it won him little kudos in the Islamic world." may be true - it was offset by the peace brokering that he furiously involved himself within.

Yet Clinton's foreign policies were, by and large, no different from his predecessors. He still put US interests first (sometimes annoyingly so - as in the case of the Banana trade dispute which put US interests above those of 3rd world countries - threatening their economic survival).

But just as he could ruffle feathers - he was even better at smoothing them with the polished qualities of statesman, diplomat and politician. France has an objection to US policy? Clinton would rush off to meet the French President oozing with statements about the value of french opinion and how France was a great and moral power - it becomes hard to attack him after that.

Bush on the other, lacks those very qualities which are so necessary in a US president: statesmanship and diplomacy. And so US foreign policy has become transparently 'pro-US and to hell with the consequences to other nations'. Not unsurprisingly, it has created a rift that even Clinton would be hard pressed to fix.

No other takers?

Quote S.M.H
.
“And as Washington masses men and machines for another war against Iraq, it and much of the rest of the world are locked in a struggle that well might mark the end of the UN's usefulness as a global forum”

end quote

It’s a well written piece but full of the powers of hindsight. And the above quote made me laugh. When has the US even given the UN the time of day? Yes the world could have been changed in the 90’s but the new world order gave way to everyone’s personal self interest as is always the case.

Very interesting.

One point though on the opportunity missed. How long was it before we all believed the Soviet Union was really gone? It officially dissolved in '91(?), but I kept expecting a comeback. At the time the opportunity was missed, it may not have seemed like such an opportunity.

I remember seeing the students protesting in Tiananmen Square in '89 and thinking, "the Soviet Union is crumbling and now the Chinese are giving in? This really is the end of Communism!", and then the tanks rolled, and I thought, maybe we're being overly optimistic. I don't think I really believed the Soviets were gone either when '91 rolled around.

Unlike the definative end of WWII, the end of the Cold War didn't seem like...like...the end of a 45 year process?!?!

I'm not really sure how well I expressed that, but I think we were all a bit unsure how real an opportunity existed in the early '90s.

I don't have too much to say about the article itself. I thought it was very well written. It illustrates well the faux pas of both Europe and the US during the whimper period know as the end of the Cold War or the '90s. Maybe there are a bunch of hollow men on both sides of the pond. One of the biggest failings of the Clinton years was his Admins tendancy to use foreign military action to divert attention from home. Once things at home cooled down, or critism increased overseas, the troops were brought home - leaving those depending on US aid hanging.