"American historians have an uneasy relationship with (Wooddraw) Wilson. They extol his ideals and quote his speeches, but view him as impressively ineffective. At key points in his presidency (particularly at its end), Wilson proved incapable of transforming his ideas into political programs. An avowed anti-colonialist, he issued a menu of international principles (his “Fourteen Points”) that committed America to the spread of democracy and support for self-determination.
It was his greatest moment, but it was only a moment. Arriving in Versailles for the conference he hoped would endorse his program, Wilson spent his time slumming with imperialists. They listened carefully to his fine talk on self-determination then sent him packing. Having misjudged Europe, Wilson then misjudged America, supposing his fellow citizens would agree to his vision for a new international order.
Wilson’s campaign to make America the guarantor of this new order failed, destroying first his health and then his legacy. Misjudging others is forgivable, misjudging your own people is not. Woodrow Wilson was president alright but he didn’t know of what. Thus Wilson and perhaps Barack Obama.
In mid-April, the Obama administration held a first-ever nuclear security summit in Washington to “establish a more cohesive international legal framework that would make it easier to prevent nuclear terrorism.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to attend, citing concerns that he would come under pressure to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then, when Obama urged all nations to sign the NPT, Israel said it would refuse.
It’s important to note that Israel is not the only nuclear “refusenik.” It is joined by Pakistan and India. A fourth country, North Korea, acceded to the treaty, then broke it. That is to say, while it might seem politically wise to promote an equal standard for all states on the nuclear issue, the simple truth is that simply signing the NPT will not guarantee compliance or limit proliferation. Iran has signed the treaty, but it is unclear whether the Iranians are in the process of breaching it.
But what Israel has done is different. Pakistan and India have told the world of their weapons, while North Korea at least had the good sense to withdraw from an agreement it would not keep. Israel refuses to speak of its nuclear stockpile, refuses to be a part of the treaty and avows that it is a special case. Additionally, Israel’s defense of its position suggests that it believes that signing a flawed treaty is worse than not signing one at all. Put another way, Israel argues that since other nations ignore (or violate) agreements, it gives them the right to do the same."
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment