Neo Club Press Miami FL

What’s at stake for the world in the U.S. elections

 Lo último
  • La revuelta de los holgazanes Ya se sabe que Lenin no trabajó nunca, que mientras se preparaba para su único empleo, el de alucinado profesional, comió y vistió durante 30 años con las remesas que...
  • El diablo embotellado del castrismo Uno no sabe si vomitar o retorcerse de vergüenza ajena ante esa manada de esbirros, jóvenes en mayoría, con pulóveres bien ajustados para lucir músculos y con toda la traza...
  • Equality is inhuman Capitalism cannot offer you equality—equality is inhuman–, not even security in terms of assistance (capitalism opens a range of possibilities so you, and only you, ensure your security). Capitalism however...
  • Tres: Kim, la prensa y la militarización de Cuba El hombre-cohete A pesar de que vivimos en la Sociedad del Disparate, allí donde aún funciona el estado de derecho –caso de Estados Unidos– sigue habiendo fricciones entre la puesta...
  • Degeneración del cubano, el mal mayor del castrismo El mayor daño hecho por los Castro a la nación cubana sin dudas es, sí, de carácter antropológico. No digo algo nuevo. Me descubrí coincidiendo con quienes comenzaron a decir...

What’s at stake for the world in the U.S. elections

Hillary Clinton

What’s at stake for the world in the U.S. elections
mayo 10
18:25 2016


Robert W. Merry, editor of The National Interest and a renowned writer on historical topics, says that the confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is, in reality, a battle between nationalism and globalism. A good summary, it seems to me, but worthy of a deeper examination.

In the United States, the temptation of isolating the nation from international conflicts, prescribed by George Washington’s famous farewell address, has always coexisted with Thomas Jefferson’s allusion to the “Empire of Liberty” as the natural destiny of a country that should devote its finest efforts to the expansion of democracy and the protection of the weak beyond its borders.

Sometimes the Republicans adopted the idea of benevolent imperialism — Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower (with great foresight), Ronald Reagan (remember Grenada), the two Bushes — but on other occasions the Democrats did: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and even Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Obviously, that stance wove together a defense of the values and the material interests of the United States. Carter, despite his rejection of violence, proclaimed in 1980 the nation’s willingness to defend at any cost the nations of the Persian Gulf, where clearly there were neither freedoms nor democracy.

In turn, Clinton proclaimed in 1999 the doctrine that bears his name, wherein he set down what began to be called “the responsibility to protect,” which included, very especially, an opposition to genocide even if it required the use of force.

This explains NATO’s intervention in the war in Yugoslavia to protect the Kosovars or the Bosnians. Somehow, Clinton made amends for the United States’ paralysis during the Rwanda slaughter in 1994. Two million Africans were massacred in that horror before the indifferent eyes of the developed world.

It was Obama’s turn to decide Washington’s actions during the so-called Arab Spring, and the U.S. Air Force carried out almost 7,000 missions in Libya until it totally destroyed Qaddafi’s army with consequences that were — of course — damaging to all the parties involved. The spring became a long and bloody winter.

The role of the United States, and what some call the Pax Americana, was forged in Bretton Woods, N.H., beginning in July 1994, when F. D. Roosevelt summoned the representatives of 44 nations to outline the economic bases of the post-war world. The defeat of the Axis countries was evident, and Washington had decided that the U.S. should assume the leadership of the free world to avoid a repetition of what happened after the end of World War One in 1918.

The second step in the same direction was given by Harry Truman in 1946. In a memorable speech, he proclaimed his doctrine of “contention” toward the imperial spasms of Stalinism that besieged Greece, Turkey and (Truman believed) Iran. The Truman Doctrine propelled the Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO, the re-founding of the OAS and the creation of the CIA, among other initiatives that remain extant.

Simultaneously, the State Department was developing diplomatic measures based on “the carrot and the stick” approach to propitiate a good democratic behavior, a strategy always subordinated to the struggle against communism. Democracies were preferable, but anti-communist dictatorships were accepted as a lesser evil.

That’s a contradiction that, at the other end, the left embraces today, when it applauds Obama for maintaining good relations with the Cuban dictatorship and the communists of “Podemos” in Spain, even as they refuse to condemn the violations of human rights in Venezuela and in the perimeter of the so-called “21st-Century Socialism.”

Trump, beyond his xenophobic bullying, his narcissism, his misogyny and his mocking of the disabled, somehow represents the position of the “realistic” Americans who believe that the United States is a nation like any other, whose government must devote itself entirely to defend the interests of its citizens. As the Spaniards say, “let every mast support its sail.”

Hillary, beyond her lies and inexactitudes, and disregarding the rejection that she provokes among many in U.S. society, will presumably continue the policies of Roosevelt-Truman and her own husband, playing the role of “liberal hawk” in the sense given to those words in the United States.

Frankly, despite the many problems and contradictions, the world has been a much safer and more habitable place protected by the United States than what it might have been without Bretton Woods, the Truman Doctrine and everything that came afterward. Because I come from a communist nation, I know perfectly what would have been a planet governed or led by Moscow and organized around the Marxist-Leninist insanity. A terrible nightmare.

Sobre el autor

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Carlos Alberto Montaner ( La Habana, 1943). Escritor y periodista. Ha publicado alrededor de treinta libros, varios traducidos al inglés, el portugués, el ruso y el italiano, entre ellos las novelas "La mujer del coronel", "Otra vez adiós" y "Tiempo de canallas". La revista Poder lo ha calificado como uno de los columnistas más importantes en lengua española, y en 2012 Foreign Policy lo eligió como uno de los 50 intelectuales más influyentes de Iberoamérica. Reside entre Madrid y Miami.

Artículos relacionados

Radio Viva 24

Letras Online

  Jorge Olivera Castillo


Jorge Olivera Castillo

                    Las lágrimas no tienen patria fija su bandera es un deshilachado triángulo de pesadillas el himno un brote de notas

Leer más
  Francisco Alemán de las Casas

La mancha en el expediente

Francisco Alemán de las Casas

Dicen que cuando sueñas vívidamente con tu infancia es porque se acerca la hora de morir. Más allá de cualquier interpretación sabionda o aventurada al respecto, sea relacionada con la

Leer más
  Gastón Baquero

José Martí y los niños

Gastón Baquero

En 1989 andaba José Martí enfebrecido por un empeño nuevo: hablarles a los niños. A él se le re-subía la ternura, que era la forma externa de su alma, cuando

Leer más

Capitolio de La Habana – Daphne Rosas (2011)

Festival Vista Miami

Carlos Alberto Montaner – El por qué de los ataques acústicos en Cuba