Is bush on the right path as a leader of a superpowr?

Is bush on the right path as a leader of a superpowr? by Albert Abkarian & Gagik Shahbazian-15347

No matter how paradoxical it is, the people of the countries of the Eastern bloc, including the Soviet Union (with some exceptions) gained more from the collapse of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) than the people of the countries of the Western bloc. We want to emphasize this, as it is considered that the collapse of the USSR was the result of a durable and uncompromising conflict between the East and the West, between the communist and the capitalist blocs.

We would like to especially dwell upon what the USA and its citizens gained or lost as a result of this collapse. We ask the question, why then should be concentrate on USA specifically? The reason is that the conflict between the East and the West always implied a conflict between the USSR and the USA.
The USSR collapsed and the world became singlepolar which made the USA a sole superpower in the world. This events happened independent of the will of the USA itself.
However the superpower “status” bring with it number of rights and obligations that must be rigorously carried out. Unlike other countries - even the most developed ones – a superpower has a qualitatively different role in the geopolitical arena of the world and needs a radical review of the state’s foreign and domestic policies. These policies include its geopolitical, financial and economic interests. In this case, one must analyze United States’ specifics issues, including a review of the world outlook of the US domestic governmental institutions and citizenry since its socio-political institutions which is based completely on a different ideology and philosephy. It is not a secret, that the US has been a standard setter for democracy and free economic relations; a locomotive power for progress and a country of equal possibilities and so on - in a word a model country that must be emulated.

Thus, shortly after it became the only superpower, the US itself affirmed its special role in the geopolitical arena by bombing the territories of the former Yugoslavia. US proved that it had the right to put things in order in the heart of Europe and no country would stand in its way. In fact, this turned out to be case. This events took place under Democrat President Bill Clinton. This period should be considered as the “nauguration” of the USA as a superpower. All events that followed and are continueing to this date have their foundation in that “Inuauguration”.

Many leaders of various states, nations and socio-political movements began to contradict statements made by leaders of the superpower. The opposition is to earn political and/or financial dividends by publicly speak against a superpower or even analyze and criticize its actions to feel that you are equal or on a comparable level as the other leader.

The US administration of Democrat President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush, ignored or lightly responded this unimportant criticisms because their statements are of no consequence to the policies set by United States as a super power.

What happened under Republican President George W. Bush, shocked not only the USA but the whole world. On September 11, 1997, the USA was faced with a unthinkable situation. Regardless of the political affiliation and ideology, the President of United States had to respond to this attacks and insure severe punishment for the responsible entities as the attacks were not against any one individual or any political party but against the entire country and its citizens.

Enough has been said and written about the motives of this terrorist act. However, it is not necessary at this juncture to analyze this issue any further internally. One thing must be said – ‘there’s no need to look for the black cat in the dark room especially when one is not there.’

Thus, President Geroge W. Bush, in beginning of his term, took up the challenge of responding to the attacks on 9/11 and acted as a reasonable and rational President had to in his position as a leader of the super power.

Why strike Afghanistan? As per US Government Internal reports, the man most responsible for the attacks was located in Afghanistan (setting aside his background as well as the reason he committed it). The fact that he was not found and arrested was not President’s fault. At the same time the necessary result was achieved for the superpower:

1. The USA showed that it can conduct a military operation at any location of the world and no Country can and will stand in its way, especially in Afghanistan, which was considered a sphere of geopolitical interest for the USSR.
2. Today, Afghanistan has a pro- American president and government.
3. The USA secured a controlled zone for the safe transportation of hydrocarbon fuel from the Middle Eastern and Caspian regions, bypassing Russia.
4. Drug trafficking from Afghanistan was cut off and taken under control
5. The place and role of Afghanistan on the geopolitical map of the world is so important that it does not need to be argued. The fact that many powers fought it is well known from history: The Great Britain, Czarist Russia, USSR, USA

The next step for the USA was not to allow any of the existing countries to take the role of a new superpower. In United States opinion two countries of China and Russia may have had the potential to be the other super power.

The economic and financial interests of the USA and China are so intertwined (especially after China joined WTO), be it on the level of medium or small business or transnational companies and countries, that most of the questions between the two countries are resolved through economic means. Accordingly, US current policy should stay unchanged as it relates to China at this time. However, this is a temporary fix; the USA seems obliged to apply serious adjustments to these relations in the near future.

The situation is different with Russia. No definite plan and integrated policy has been put into effect relating to Russia. This eventual policy is reasonable, because Russia is comparatively new in the geopolitical arena. It is not the Soviet Union any more; it is the legal successor to the USSR and its “main heir” possesses huge intellectual potential, experience in government structuring and the richest natural resources. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia, on the whole, very quickly restored its governmental institutions and defined its priorities in domestic and foreign policies. Besides, the effected economic reforms made it possible to strengthen its place on the economic arena and in financial world markets. Of course, such a short description of the situation with Russia is not enough, and we are ready to give a more detailed description in the future, but all that was said above is conceptually accurate and, on the whole, depicts the situation with Russia.
Taking into account this situation, the US administration made, in our opinion, the only accurate decision: to establish friendly, allied relationship with the neighboring countries of Russia, by involving them into the spheres of its interests.
First – in the Ukraine the forces with pro-western orientation came to power after the “orange” revolution.
Second – The “Pink” revolution in Georgia with the same result.
Third – Kyrgyzstan; again, a colorful revolution with the same result.
All these countries are Russia’s immediate neighbors; moreover, Ukraine occupies a key position in Central Europe; Georgia - in the South Caucasus and in the Black Sea and Caspian waters; Kyrgyzstan – in Middle Asia.
The work with Azerbaijan started earlier with the program of extraction and transportation of the Caspian oil, bypassing Russia. Currently consultations are being conducted regarding the RLS in Gabalinsk, as ell.
Under this administration, the relations with Kazakhstan have significantly improved, which is one of the key countries in the Middle Asian region. Here, besides the geopolitical interests, there are economic interests too: the oil deposit in Tengiz (the transportation route for this oil is already known – the corridor of the Caspian oil pipe-line) and the strategically important Baykanur and Semipalatinsk.
Considering the complex of all these steps as well as the actions intending to involve the countries of the former Soviet Camp (Eastern Europe and the Baltic States) into NATO, one may surely say that the USA is strengthening its position in the world as superpower and, at the same time, it makes every effort to neutralize all other potential candidates.
Behind this limited enumeration of US achievements is the enormous work of the foreign policy departments and Special Forces, highly qualified analysts, planners and performers. Each of the enumerated steps may comprise a textbook and is worthy of a separate monograph. All the steps were so well regulated that they did not lead to direct military clashes and, on the whole, they were carried out constitutionally and democratically.
The policy against Iraq is the continuation of the superpower’s policy to establish zones of geopolitical interests of the USA. Why Iraq?
1. It is one of the leaders of the Arab world that unifies all the US enemies and anti-American forces.
2. It was a threat to the US interests in this region.
3. It is hostile towards the USA regime.
4. It is an absolute domestic dictatorship, bordering on tyranny.
5. It has profound internal religious and ethnic conflicts.
6. It has the richest natural resources.
7. Its geographical position is convenient for controlling the whole region.

However, it should be noted that any superpower that is defending its interests at various points of the world does so under various humanitarian slogans: liberation from the colonial yoke, help the fraternal nations, class, people of the same faith and so on, establishment of a democratic regime; support the national liberation movement and many more.
We would like to stop here and make an interim summary, as follows:
1. President G. Bush and his administration came to lead a country that was already a superpower de facto and de jure.
2. Throughout their governance the country carried out a rather
rational foreign policy in strengthening its position in the world.
What’s the problem then? The answer to that question must be sought inside the country. Are the people as well as the governmental and socio-political institutions of the USA ready to perceive their country as the only superpower in the world, and, if yes, what will it cost them not only materially but also morally? We think that the head of a superpower, which is conducting military actions thousands of kilometers away, should not publicly ask the Congress of his country for permission to send any additional military contingents and get a denial or an agreement with reservations. This destroys the balance between the rights and obligations of a country’s head. This is only one example; there are a number of them, beginning with the unfounded criticism and attacks in the address of the President in the media and the politicians’ speeches, and ending with the publication of the polls. The Democrats are criticizing – it’s understandable; it’s the opposition party. Why are the Republicans keeping silent?
The USA must make the decision for itself: is it ready to remain in the status of the superpower or not, because half-decisions are not acceptable in this matter; one cannot be half-pregnant.
If yes, then it should start to gradually reform the socio-political and governmental institutions inside the country.
If not, then the country will still remain one of the developed countries, but it must be taken into consideration that another country may take the place of the superpower (or structure) and the consequences will be unpredictable for the USA.
We will prepare the discussion of these questions in the future.

Albert Abkarian & Gagik Shabazian are principals in Cyrios, Inc. a international business consulting company. www.Cyrios.com

Article Directory: Article Dashboard