Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Bench Memos - National Review Online

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Bench Memos - National Review Online

No Allies, But Plenty of Enemies -- By: Victor Davis Hanson

ADVERTISEMENTS

Almost 30 years after losing a war over the Falkland Islands, Argentina is once again warning Britain that it still wants back what it calls the Malvinas. Argentina is now angry over a British company’s oil exploration off the windswept islands in what it considers its South Atlantic backyard. Although nominally democratic, the unpopular Kirchner government in Buenos Aires has claimed that the sparsely settled islands are a symbolic matter of Spanish-speaking pride throughout Latin America and belong to Argentina because the islands were Spain’s in the 19th century. In response to all this, the Obama administration announced that it would remain neutral. Aside from the fact that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British -- and aside from our history of supporting Britain’s claim, including during the 1982 war -- there are lots of reasons why our neutrality here is a bad idea. Britain is a longstanding NATO member. It has bled side-by-side with America in two world wars, Korea, and two conflicts in Iraq, and continues to do so in Afghanistan. The United Kingdom still shares close linguistic, cultural, and historical affinities with the United States. We do not support all that the British do; nor do they always support us. But our centuries-old friendship should earn Britain special support from us in its disputes, even in the relatively unimportant Falklands mess. If Britain is not considered an ally, then America no longer has real allies. And perhaps that is the point after all. The Obama administration does not wish to see the world so divided between allies and the rest. The president rather abruptly canceled a missile-defense plan with allies Poland and the Czech Republic in order to woo the antagonistic Russians. Dictatorial Syria and the anti-Western Palestinians see as much American outreach as does pro-American, democratic Israel. Obama seems more eager to mollify Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez than to strengthen our alliance with a democratic and pro-American Uribe government in neighboring Colombia. The list goes on. Meanwhile, Obama has symbolically tried to downsize the profile of the U.S. by downplaying the idea of an “exceptional” America, bowing to foreign leaders, and apologizing for supposed past American sins. All that raises the question: What exactly are the advantages these days of being a friend of the U.S., when neutrals and enemies garner as much of our sympathies? We have seen such naïve attitudes before in the West. After the horrific carnage of the First World War, utopians wrongly swore that rival European alliances had alone caused the war, and so created the League of Nations. Enlightened world citizens legislating peace would do a better job than nationalist politicians who crudely had once sought security through balancing power and forging alliances. Hitler and the far more lethal Second World War followed instead. After 1945, a much wiser United States talked grandly about the new United Nations, but, in reality, its own alliances kept much of Europe and Asia free from an aggressive Soviet Union. Today, there are many Falkland-like hot spots throughout the world. Yet the United States, not the International Court at The Hague, keeps North Korea from attacking our ally South Korea. The power of America, not the international community, persuades China not to squeeze our friend Taiwan. Europe is safe because of an American-led NATO, not due to any concern from the United Nations Human Rights Council. In other words, America and its alliances keep friends safe. And the world is more peaceful and prosperous than at any time in history because dozens of nations count on our support and share our values. So, until human nature changes, there are always going to be some nations that are more aggressive than others, seeking to take what they can by force. Groups of like-minded others will resist them for both principle and their own self-protection. And the majority of “neutral” countries will keep quiet, waiting to see who proves the stronger -- and then opportunistically joining the eventual winner. An idealistic America may now decide that it does not want or need special allies like Britain. But that diffidence will eventually mean we have more enemies than ever -- as the watching world makes the necessary adjustments and joins those who unabashedly promise them support and protection. -- Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and editor, most recently, of <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=%200691137900">Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome</a>. <hr width=100% size=2>

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on March 07, 2010 (boomark / email).