The Hill: “America’s lack of leadership is feeding global instability”
Washington, September 19 (AZERTAC). The Hill newspaper has issued an article headlined “America’s lack of leadership is feeding global instability”.Written by Jason Katz, the former head of Public Affairs and Public Relations for the American Jewish Committee, the article reads: “The growth of global instability and volatility is undeniable, so is the need for America’s leadership. However, the problem is not just lack of leadership, but an apparent confusion about actual policies that leadership necessitates. Actions by a superpower (the U.S. is still a superpower) should be realistic and strategic, as well as driven by interest and objective.
Introduction of elections in Gaza, for instance, produced a terrorist Hamas authority, which repeatedly attacked Israel and, caused death and destruction amongst their own people. Egypt is another example. The radical and bloody Muslim Brotherhood was brought to power by an election.
Some would argue that voting freely is more important than anything else, while forgetting that security and peace are necessary for that, not to mention that the voters need to be alive.
Similarly, America’s expedited withdrawal from Iraq, half-hearted (some would say half-witted) actions in Syria, half-measured responses to ISIL, and decisive but somewhat pointless intervention in Libya helped deepen divisions and add fuel to civil wars. Should U.S. abandon Afghanistan, again when the outcome is just as predictable?
Strangely, the U.S makes little distinction between a friend and a foe. Note the increasingly comfortable relationship between Washington and Teheran, this against the background of the former’s conspicuous tension with Israel. If there is one lesson the administration can learn from its one time buddy Turkish PM Erdogan is that his policy of “zero problems with neighbors” ended up with having zero neighbors without problems.
After the 2008 war in Georgia, Washington’s insistence on the “reset” policy was seen as a sign of weakness by the Russians, both because of different political mentalities and because it was hard to see it otherwise.
Also puzzling is Washington’s reluctance to engage with actual allies. One example is Azerbaijan, the key player in the fragile geopolitical equilibrium in Eurasia. This fiercely independent country’s choice of partners in the currently fluid situation may determine the future of the region. Squeezed by Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan is the nation Georgia depends upon economically, the main westward energy transit route for energy-rich Central Asia and an imperative political partner to all. In this line up of realpolitik posturing, one absentee is the United States.
Seemingly having learned nothing from the debauchery of the “Arab Spring,” Washington is too eager to criticize Azerbaijan.
However, even with all its faults, Azerbaijan is scolded more than others much faultier. A good portion of this stems from Armenian activists, who are eager to emphasize Azerbaijan’s flaws rather than the spectacular failure of Armenia’s statehood. It is hard to see how Armenia can be characterized as an independent state when it is clear that it has evolved to become a vassal state of the Russia and a close ally of Iran.
These activists are the same people who push for a second Armenian state, also destined to fail. This one in Azerbaijan’s Nagorno Karabakh region, internationally recognized as Azerbaijan and illegally occupied by Armenia.”
Other news in this section
