Why Realists are Worried About McCain
The article explains in detail the close friendship of John McCain and Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli, from when they first met at a gathering in Washington in 1995 through the Georgian-Russian war this past summer, in which Saakashvilli called McCain on a daily basis for support and guidance. The article attempts to argue that this relationship could be detrimental to the United States' foreign policy decisions in a McCain-led administration. The author claims that this friendship could cloud his judgment, and even cites an official as saying "When you personalize these issues, you lose sight of some more basic national interests" to convey the message that John would not be acting in ways that would best serve the US as a result.
I find this entire argument quite laughable.
First, the fact that McCain knows and gets along with the leader of our most fervent ally should only be seen as a positive. At a time when the United States needs all the allies it can get, how can a candidate that would immediately solidify a relationship with such a crucial allied nation not be seen as a plus? That McCain already knows and converses regularly with world leaders can only make him more qualified to handle our nation's foreign policy affairs.
Second, just because they are longtime friends, McCain will not blindly follow Saakashvilli's words. The article also details the story of how when Saakashvilli won the election to become Georgia's president, the incumbent refused to relinquish his seat. John McCain called up the incumbent, who was also a good friend at the time, to demand that he step down from office. The author also explains that last November, when Saakashvilli ordered a crackdown on an opposition TV station, McCain called and demanded that "all freedoms [be] restored" immediately. These two events show that McCain will not let friendships get in the way of his personal convictions, which is something I admire in a politician.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am responding to the why realists are worried about McCain because I disagree with the critique of the article. I think the actual author of the article had in mind the fact that if Russia and Georgia were to keep this war on going or have it again in the future we would choose a side under John McCain’s presidency. Because of McCain’s friendship with the Russian president and the impending alliance that could form we could possibly start a new cold war. In the process we might bring ourselves into a full war and another arms race with Russia and I don’t think this is something our country can afford at such a crucial time in our history. In the past McCain has turned his back on his friends for doing wrong but what if Georgia is in the right and McCain decides that we need to help them, we can’t be pushed into World War 3 just to help Georgia.
I personally can only see disastorous things developing out of this relationship. Our relationship with Russia is far more important than ours with Georgia is, which is the realist approach to this matter. This friendship with the President of Georgia, if it is as strong as the article makes it out to be, may cause McCain to act in a manner that does not have the country's best interest at heart. McCain does not seem like the type to allow something like that to happen, though, it still remains a realistic possibility that is troubling. If McCain is unable to realize that our relationship with Russia is far more important than Georgia is, and remains focused on his friendship, it could most certainly be extremely harmful to our nation's interests.
After reading the two responses to my article, I must respectfully disagree with these critiques. Tom worries that, although he acknowledges that McCain has reprimanded his political friends when they were rightfully deserving of criticism, McCain would assist Georgia if "Georgia is in the right". My answer to that is: if Russia does wrongfully invade another country, should we just sit idly and watch our loyal allies be decimated? If Georgia is truly "in the right", we can't simply allow the good guy to get trampled.
I offer another, similar instance in history: a leader of a prominent global power, fearing another World War, appeases an aggressive and un-democratic nation's desires by allowing them to invade several neighboring sovereign nations without lifting one finger. This was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Didn't work then, won't work now. This case demonstrates that we cannot embolden an aggressive nation by letting them invade other countries at will. With Russia also threatening military intervention in Ukraine, as well as hints of severe retaliation in response to a NATO-proposed missile DEFENSE system in Poland, the similarities to the prior case are abundant. Our next president cannot afford to be the twenty-first century's Neville Chamberlain.
Corey G. claims that we should abandon our loyal ally Georgia, arguing that our friendship with Russia is "far more important". To that, I counter that Russia clearly does not want to be "friends" with the United States. Putin clearly resents "The West", and the main reason that Russia attacked Georgia is because Putin dislikes the fact that Georgia wants to join NATO, thereby strengthening ties with "The West". The bottom line is that Russia simply doesn't want our friendship.
Post a Comment