April 6, 2008 |  15 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Anatol Lieven

Why We Should Fear a McCain Presidency

Anatol Lieven: McCain’s promise to listen more to America’s allies in Europe needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Senator McCain is in fact a neo-conservative as can be seen from his policies on Iraq, Russia, NATO, and democracy building.

It may seem incredible to say this, given past experience, but a few years from now Europe and the world could be looking back at the Bush administration with nostalgia. This possibility will arise if the US elects Senator John McCain as president in November.

Over the years the US has inserted itself into potential flashpoints in different parts of the world. The Republican party is now about to put forward a natural incendiary as the man to deal with those flashpoints.

The problem that Mr McCain poses stems from his ideology, his policies and above all his personality. His ideology, like that of his chief advisers, is neo-conservative. In the past, Mr McCain was considered to be an old-style conservative realist. Today, the role of the realists on his team is merely decorative.

Driven in part by his intense commitment to the Iraq war, Mr McCain has relied more on neo-conservatives such as his close friend William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor. His chief foreign policy advisor is Randy Scheunemann, another leading neo-conservative and a founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Mr McCain shares their belief in what Mr Kristol has called "national greatness conservatism". In 1999, Mr McCain declared: "The US is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history... We have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit."

Mr McCain's promises, during last week's visit to London, to listen more to America's European allies, need to be taken with a giant pinch of salt. There is, in fact, no evidence that he would be prepared to alter any important US policy at Europe's request.

Reflecting the neo-conservative programme of spreading democracy by force, Mr McCain declared in 2000: "I'd institute a policy that I call ‘rogue state rollback'. I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments." Mr McCain advocates attacking Iran if necessary in order to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, and last year was filmed singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann".

Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of "appeasement" of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support.

Mr McCain's policies would not be so worrying were it not for his notorious quickness to fury in the face of perceived insults to himself or his country. Even Thad Cochran, a fellow Republican senator, has said: "I certainly know no other president since I've been here who's had a temperament like that."

For all his bellicosity, President George W. Bush has known how to deal cautiously and diplomatically with China and even Russia. Could we rely on Mr McCain to do the same?

Mr McCain exemplifies "Jacksonian nationalism" -- after Andrew Jackson, the 19th-century Indian-fighter and president -- and the Scots-Irish military tradition from which both men sprung. As Mr McCain's superb courage in North Vietnamese captivity and his honourable opposition to torture by US forces demonstrate, he also possesses the virtues of that tradition. Then again, some of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century were caused by brave, honourable men with a passionate sense of national mission.

Not just US voters, but European governments, should use the next nine months to ponder the consequences if Mr McCain is elected and how they could either prevent a McCain administration from pursuing pyromaniac policies or, if necessary, protect Europe from the ensuing conflagrations

Anatol Lieven teaches at King's College London and is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC.

This article originally appeared on the Financial Times, and is published here by kind permission of the author.

 

  • 76
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Dino Paoli De La Hoya

April 8, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Based on his perception of John Mc Cain, I am very interested as to whom Mr.Lieven considers to be an adequate president for the United States.
 
Donald  Stadler

April 9, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Lieven's views are somewhat one-sided but actually rather preiscent; from what I know of Senator McCain I believe that many in Europe will come to detest him, possibly even more than they currently detest President Bush - difficult as that is to believe now!

On the other hand I'm not sure that many of these people would find ANY possible President of the US acceptable - unless he or she entirely follows foreign policy guidelines laid out in Bruxelles. Not even Obama is likely to do that - certainly not Hillary Clinton or Sentaor McCain.

We Americans have a most detestable habit of electing Americans to our highest offfice, men or women who put US interests first. Deplorable, isn't it? ;)
 
Johanna  Gregor

April 10, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I strongly agree with Mr. Lieven’s view that a new US President McCain could be less appreciated by Europeans than the current presidential election-euphoria suggests.

A hegemonic American superpower that deals with global problems without the help of other countries is an illusion. Of course, the US is indispensable and is a force for good. As Mr. Stadler pointed out, the future US President should prioritize US interests, but it is a misperception to think that multilateralism is not useful to the US.

The fact that neo-conservative Condoleezza Rice was accused of appeasing Russia by McCain’s close advisory circle gives us an impression of what would happen if the phone rang at two in the morning in the White House and McCain answered….
 
Dino Paoli De La Hoya

April 10, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Multilateralism is obviously useful to the US, but like the higher leadership in the EU, policy is assumably created to serve European interests first.

It is important to keep in mind that even if the interests of a nation/union may not be entirely approved by international partners, those interests will still be satisfied nonetheless. Critiquing certain policy maneuvers does not automatically imply that certain (fill in the blank) policy is wrong, but could just be clashing with the political opinions of certain key actors.

 
Unregistered User

April 14, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Nuts
 
Unregistered User

April 14, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
mr Mc Cain will have in any case a better contact with the EU representants, because he doesn't appear to be a "bigoted" religious. I am not sure either that he is a neo-con, he has a campaign discourse to appease them ; they were threatening to not going to vote for anyone when he was finally designed. His approach with mr Romney calmed them. He has a frank expression as the navy men practice, in that, he reminds me more mr Reagan. He is in any case on the army side.

As EU members, it will not change much the approaches ; might be he'll be more out to try to convince us for help.

I prefer him to Hillary, Obama, don't know him too much, he seems brillant, but I expect that if he gets elected, he won't have the money to achieve what he previews.


And Don, I don't mind who'll get elected, as frenchs we have the habit to make what we want :lol:
 
Donald  Stadler

April 15, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think you have a shakey idea of the US political landscape, franchie! McCain isn't a neocon but the the neocons aren't a major political faction anyway, more of a school of thought on foreign policy.

McCain was in trouble with the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which is concerned more with taxes, controlling immigration, and reducing government spending and taxes. Some of them may agree with the neocons - others won't.

McCain isn't a 'bigoted' religious but then Bush was not 'bigoted' either. Bush is more overtly religious than McCain is, that much is true.

I prefer him to Hillary. Obama seems to have shot himself in the foot last week with a remark he made about rural Americans. It remains to be seen whether this is a small wound or whether it is something more. The campaign Hillary is running seems to be really hurting the Democrats, it's the political equivalent of burning the crops so the other side can't eat them in war - which may result in the Democrats starving in November. It's hurting Obama, but it's unlikely to convince people in the middle that Hillary is a better choice. If I change from preferring Obama it will be to switch to McCain - not Hillary!
 
Unregistered User

April 15, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"McCain isn’t a neocon",

I know, I have also seen how the bushists reacted to him, what the vets and soldiers think about him... I can tell you they weren't saying nice things on him a few months ago ; now that that's only candidate, they try to find him qualities ; poor Obama, he's got a big costume, Hillary is for ever the cheating beast.

"Bush was not ‘bigoted’ either" , if not then his team is, or the white house has a very bad communication service
 
Donald  Stadler

April 15, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"A hegemonic American superpower that deals with global problems without the help of other countries is an illusion. Of course, the US is indispensable and is a force for good. As Mr. Stadler pointed out, the future US President should prioritize US interests, but it is a misperception to think that multilateralism is not useful to the US."

The problem is that how 'multilateralism' will be defined depends upon where one is standing. An example is the difference between how European heads of state and President Bush have been reacting to the Olymic torch/Tibet protests. PM Brown, Chancellor Merkel, and President Sarko have all made some kind of public concession to the demonstrations - President Bush has not done so beyond explaining why he is still going to attend the opening ceremony of the upcoming Games.

His point is that he has been telling the Chinese leadership that their Tibet policy is not working every chance he gets, but in private. Public humiliation of the Chinese government over Tibet is not going to change things. Private advice has also not done so to date, it is true, but it doesn't raise the hackles of Chinese patriots and of their government and therefore leaves more maneuver room. It also preserves a relationship which President Bush has been building his entire term - China has been useful to the US as a partner in certain matters - particularly vis North Korea.

Tibet is not good - but there are worse things. Much worse. Specifically what is going on in North Korea, Darfur, etc. Chinese help is going to be needed in dealing with all of these issues and with Iran also, and deadly public insult is not in the cards - at least not for the US. Perhaps the 'older and wiser' Europeans can afford this kind of policy - the US cannot.

This is a valuable relationship and should not be jepordized by intemperate remarks by the US President. That strikes me as very 'multilateral' whereas the actions of Brown, Merkel, and Sarko seem to pander to short-term public sentiment for political advantage while damaging long term relations by offering public insult.

But then 'public insult' sometimes seems to be how Europe prefers to manage it's international relationships - witness the way Mr. Bush has been dealt with by European heads of state in recent times!
 
Unregistered User

April 15, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Can' t see that San Francisco had a different approach than the EU capitals that had the torch procession.

So far, mr Sarkozy didn't pronounce anything, just that the parisian youth are in parenthesis ; one knows how parisians are fond of protestations.
 
Donald  Stadler

April 16, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Who says the protezsting was any different, Franchie. I asserted that the reactions of the heads of state differed - and they did. Merkel says her plans didn't change so in her case it would have been best to remain silent, to avoid the impression that she gave that the plans actually did change and she denied it. Sarko arguably should have kept his mouth shut, as (particularly) Brown should have.

The message was delivered very well - by protestors and media. I applaud the protestors wholeheartedly; however I believe this was an activity best left to private citizens in this case.
 
Unregistered User

April 17, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Sarko arguably should have kept his mouth shut"

if you heard something else apart that'he'll wait to be in charge of the EU presidency to opt for a position vis-à-vis China OG, then enlight me
 
Donald  Stadler

April 18, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I have two reactions to this whole 'China is the biggest threat' fooferaw.

1) Relieved that the US is out of the firing line for a while.

2) Sympathy for China. Haven't we seen this process before with another country? Europe deals with other parts of the planet by demonizing them & cutting them down to size.

Time for the rest of the planet to cut Europe down to size?
 
Unregistered User

April 20, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
that's not I read in the papers though, your country is also implied in the Tibet contest deal with China, though, difficult for your government to make an official statment, your county is "owned" by China, the reverse is also true, without the US, China can't survive, your her best customers, so nothing new under the capitalist sky
 
Marek  Swierczynski

April 29, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The author claims, not without a good reason that "some of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century were caused by brave, honourable men with a passionate sense of national mission". That's surely true, but I would argue that majority of us Europeans share the view that the greatest of these catastrophes were caused by insane dictators, authoritarian rulers and state-terrorists. Brave, honourable men with a passionate sense of national mission if anything, were rather dying in large numbers in result of these catastrophes than caused them. Personal virtues of the next US president may be important, but are less important than the US policy, which isn't shaped only in the WH. Overthrowing governments by proxy forces is a tool of history now, underpinning the values of democracy, freedom and rule of law may be the tool for the future, even if it's ridiculed.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?