Copy rights
For more infomation >> survivor 2017 efsane komik video kamera arkaları - Duration: 8:26. 
American foreign policy is at its best
when we really face a crisis.
The United States is no longer going to
be the policeman of the world.
Mr. Putin has said there need to be new
rules of global order, or there'll be no rules.
Syria, Syria is dead.
There is no Syria.
When the US said we will not take sides-
that was practically saying to China,
go ahead, grab those reefs.
And that's exactly what happened.
What's the common denominator?
The common denominator is an
American retreat.
BOMBS EXPLODING IN THE DISTANCE
Should we look for substitutes?
Replace what America may be
taking away?
I worry about some of lessons that
China is learning.
This is the time for them to challenge
America's leadership.
Annexing Crimea and attacking Ukraine,
throwing the international rule book
out of the window.
No one else can do it.
We will be the dominant power for the
rest of this century,
and we need a foreign policy that is
adequate to our primacy.
Major funding for this program was
provided by: Robert & Marion Oster.
Additional funding was provided by:
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
L.E. Phillips Family Foundation,
Sarah Scaife Foundation,
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,
and FedEx.
My name is Johan Norberg.
As a writer and analyst here in Sweden,
it's my job to observe political,
cultural, and economic happenings
around the world.
Through my research and my travels,
I've come to recognize how the actions
and interests of the United States
pervade nearly every aspect of our
increasingly global community.
But in this period of economic doubt,
terrorist attacks,
and a trend towards political isolationism,
I wonder if America's role in the world
is beginning to change.
How would that affect people here in
Europe and all over the world?
I've come to New York City to meet with
Bret Stephens, Pulitzer-Prize winning
columnist and author of the book,
America in Retreat,
to find out where he believes
America has scaled-back its involvement
in the world and, perhaps, sparked
instability in the process.
Let me point to three key areas.
One, of course, is the Middle East.
Syria became the metastasizing cancer
of the Middle East.
A refugee crisis was born out of the
chaos of Syria.
The collapse of American credibility
with a broken red line also comes
out of Syria.
Next take the South China Sea.
Not only is China
trying to bully weaker powers,
like the Philippines and Vietnam,
it's also trying to bully an equal power,
like Japan.
And finally take Ukraine.
For the first time in recent history,
the idea of Russia-NATO
confrontation is realistic.
What's the common denominator?
The common denominator
is an American retreat.
It's a perception by the bullies of the world,
whether they're in Beijing or Moscow or
in Damascus- that American power,
American assurances,
American promises aren't serious
and that America isn't interested,
or isn't seriously interested,
in defending its interests,
its values, or its friends.
In 2014, fierce fighting broke out here
in eastern Ukraine,
between government forces and
Russian backed separatists.
The destruction is inescapable.
Slavyansk, Ukraine was once a
neighborhood for working class people
and their families.
Now, some parts of it like this,
in complete ruins.
How does violent conflict suddenly burst
out of relative peace?
How do orderly societies find themselves
thrust into violent disorder?
Well, it's actually pretty simple...
you have to ask, which countries
have the most capacity to do you harm?
And when you ask that question,
it will be powers which have the most
powerful military.
And, of course, Russia-
along with the United States-
are the world's two great nuclear powers.
Besides that, Russia has
probably the world's second-most
powerful conventional military.
And you have a regime in the Kremlin
which has a policy preference to tear up
the peace that was established in Europe
after the Cold War.
And with this policy preference,
they conducted a war in Georgia.
They seized Crimea and Ukraine
by military force.
And they are conducting a war in
Ukraine's east right now.
It's pretty clear to me that the
greatest national security danger we
face today is a very revisionist Kremlin.
By definition that's a global problem,
requiring global leadership by the
United States.
And we haven't really seen that.
In 2013, the government of
President Yanukovych made the decision
to suspend the Ukraine-European Union
Association Agreement and, instead,
seek closer economic ties with Russia.
Protests broke out in downtown Kiev,
beginning a wave of demonstrations
known as the "Euromaidan."
The civil unrest lasted for several months.
Petro Sydorenko was part of the
Euromaidan protests.
In this very square he was struck with
four rubber bullets fired by the former
government's special police or "Berkut".
One bullet entered the orbit of his eye,
lodging 2 mm from his brain.
Doctors saved his life,
but he is now blind in his left eye.
Eventually the protests were successful,
and President Yanukovych fled to Russia.
But the costs were great.
Over 100 protesters were killed.
Take something like the red line in Syria.
President Obama set a red line,
no use of chemical weapons.
Bashar Assad crossed that red line by
killing a thousand people with
sarin gas in Damascus.
There were no consequences.
Six months later, Vladimir Putin,
observing what happened in Syria,
took Crimea in the space of a
couple of days.
Even then there were almost
no consequences.
A few months after that,
he began a process of essentially
trying to annex eastern Ukraine,
because he understood that he could
also flagrantly violate international law,
and not suffer serious consequences
for that violation.
In 1982, a theory was introduced by
American social scientists.
The theory was based on an experiment.
Researchers left a car with a broken
window on a street in New York City.
At first, people merely strolled by,
looking at the damage.
Time passed, and
the car remained untouched,
until some unspoken notion took hold of
the neighborhood: that no one cared
about the car or the broken window,
so who would care if someone
broke another one?
So someone did.
Before long, all the windows were broken.
The radiator and the stereo was gone,
the upholstery was shredded,
and children played on the
wreck that remained.
The Broken Windows Theory
suggests that disorder met with apathy
leads to crime.
If a window is broken and remains unfixed,
it sends a signal that no one cares,
and then pretty soon,
all the windows will be broken.
Applied internationally,
it's a similar principle.
It's the idea that the example of one
country causing one source of disorder
can, in fact, create an environment,
a permissive environment, for other
countries to behave the same way.
So I think that there is a kind of an
international theory of broken windows
that quite aptly describes the world
in which we live today.
This Ukrainian army outpost is about ten
kilometers from the front lines,
well within range of light artillery.
One of the commanders is a former
university professor
inspired to join the fight.
"I simply decided that I cannot
more stay in house,
because day by day,
you are receiving information
about events and you are like
becoming a little bit nervous."
"I am patriotic person, and this flag,
for me is a very important symbol
for entire my life."
"We have to fight for our land,
because we are not on the
territory of Russia or another country;
we are on our own land
and we need to fight for it."
"Practically every machine
has its own name."
"This machine is titled Kotogoroshko."
"Kotogoroshko it is name of
hero from legend."
"This is small young man who is very
strong who can fight enemies
very effectively."
The name is quite appropriate.
Ukraine is the young small combatant,
and certainly the underdog in the battle
against neighboring Russia.
Life in the Donbass, February of 2014,
was normal; and people had jobs,
they had lives, they had food.
Then Moscow began this hybrid war
in April of '14.
And as a result of that hybrid war,
I think the current number is
2.2 million people fled.
And the people who've remained
have it very difficult.
Alexander and Irina's home was heavily
damaged by separatists.
Twice it was struck with rocket
propelled grenades.
Alexander was beaten close to death.
He believes it was because of his
pro-Ukrainian views.
As a result of the attack he suffered
traumatic brain injury.
His scars are clearly visible.
We should provide lethal aid
to the democratically-elected
government of Ukraine,
so that they can defend themselves,
and we should not try to pretend that
Russia's aggression in Crimea
never happened.
We shouldn't normalize abnormal,
lawless behavior.
The United States has no obligation
to come to Ukraine's aid.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO,
and so, is not entitled to NATO defense.
And the US would risk war with Russia
by attempting to return occupied
territory to Ukraine.
So what is done instead?
MEN SHOUTING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE
The United States Army is here in
Yavoriv in western Ukraine,
not to liberate occupied territory,
but to teach.
This is the Joint Multinational
Training Group-Ukraine,
a training operation meant to transform
Ukraine's armed forces into a modern,
professional military that will, hopefully,
be able to keep more of its land from
being seized.
Hey! They're going...they're going.
So what is this that we're seeing?
What you're seeing, sir,
this is our squad-level live fire.
The biggest thing is we're looking for-
is you can kind of tell- is if they
bound when they're supposed to.
The big thing that we're trying
to show them is that in order that-
before someone maneuvers-
someone else has to be
providing covering fire.
And you kind of control and organize,
synchronize all that.
And this is just a culmination of the
squad-level - this is kind of how
we certify them as a squad.
The training is thorough,
but no lethal aid-
like weapons and equipment-
is provided by the United States.
Mr. Putin has said,
and senior Russian officials
besides Putin have said,
that there need to be new rules of
global order, or there'll be no rules.
They've said that the post-Cold War
settlement in Europe is
unacceptable to them.
They have said that they have the right,
in fact, the duty-
to protect not just ethnic Russians,
but Russian speakers, wherever they live.
Those arguments were used to justify
the Kremlin's aggression in Georgia.
They were used to justify the Kremlin's
aggression in Crimea,
and 25% of the people in Latvia,
and 25% of the people in Estonia,
are ethnic Russians and Russian speakers.
So the Kremlin could use the same logic
to conduct military operations
in the Baltic States,
who happen to be members of NATO,
whom we are bound by NATO charter to
defend with our military.
Merle Maigre is national security
advisor to Estonian president
Toomas Hendrik Ilves.
Of course, it concerns us, the fact that
Russia has violated international law in
annexing Crimea and attacking Ukraine;
in throwing the international
rule book out of the window.
It concerns us that a powerful country
in Europe sees that the use of
force is the way to go.
And for us, what is important
is the transatlantic link to work,
the U.S. to be together with Europe,
because from a small country's
point of view, it's pretty obvious for us
that alone we cannot succeed much.
This is the Narva River,
which separates Estonia from Russia.
On one side is the Estonian city of Narva;
on the opposite bank
is the city of Ivangorod.
The fortresses of these two cities have
faced each other across the waters
for centuries.
The silent stone ramparts and towers
bear witness to much conflict,
conquest and re-conquest,
including pivotal battles in 1944,
which led to the Soviet Union's
occupation and control of Estonia,
which lasted until Estonia's
independence in 1991.
This is Operation Saber Strike,
an annual military exercise in the
Baltic States led by the US Army.
This year, the exercise is here in Estonia.
Since 2010,
the militaries of NATO members
and partners commit time and resources
to engage in a display
of their military prowess, and, hopefully,
to project a convincing deterrent power.
So, what does this multinational
deterrence look like?
For the countries very small, like Estonia,
or Latvia in between you,
it is very important to develop its own
defense forces, its own capabilities.
But more importantly,
it is very important to work with our
strong allies in order to deter the enemies,
whoever they might be.
This is what allies do.
We train together,
and so this working our interoperability;
this is ensuring that we as an alliance
work well together,
and making sure we're prepared.
And there's no better way to keep the peace,
than to be prepared.
Estonia is a NATO member state so it's
entitled to the protections of Article 5
in the North Atlantic Treaty,
which states that an attack on any
member state guarantees a defensive
response from the others.
But if the prospect of war does rear its head,
to what lengths would NATO member
states go to defend a NATO ally?
Would the US really risk war with Russia
to defend Estonia?
I would think that there would be
tremendous confidence.
The words of our leaders- going back to
President Truman- have been that the
United States is the guarantor,
along with our allies, of peace.
The US has always had this tension
between the forces that want to
collaborate in the world, and be involved,
and those that say,
the more isolationist tendency to mind
our own business and stay home.
But every time that we've followed
that inclination, situations deteriorate.
It's a lesson we learn over and over again.
But I think- I have no doubt-
and I don't think my colleagues in the
US government have any doubt that
the secret to success is US involvement.
Look, during the Cold War we risked
nuclear war with the Soviet Union
to defend this little outpost of freedom
called West Berlin.
From an objective military point of view,
it was an indefensible position,
and yet we garrisoned West Berlin.
We stood up that city.
And in time, it became a giant
advertisement for the superiority of
capitalism over communism.
It's not an accident, comrades,
that when the Cold War ended,
it ended in Berlin.
It ended with that wall.
So our willingness to commit to the
defense of that little city ended up
paying the biggest dividend of all.
There are few places in the world where
the lines between nations and ideologies
are so clearly defined as the Narva River,
which quietly demarcates
Estonia's sovereignty.
On the best of days,
it seems to create a wide divide
between the two nations.
But in times of uncertainty and aggression,
it appears to be little more than a stream.
There is a sense in which American
foreign policy is at its best when we
really face a crisis.
But at the same time when-
when things don't seem to be that urgent,
we want to get back to watching TV.
You know...we're not Sparta.
America is not a society that's
organized for war,
conquest and foreign policy.
The core of our society is
Americans enjoying the freedom to
express themselves,
and do what's in them to do.
And usually then what happens is,
somebody comes along and whacks
us on the head with a two-by-four,
and reminds us that there's a world
out there, and we need to think about it.
This is the Tempelhof Airfield;
the famed staging ground of the
Berlin Airlift of 1948.
This is where America and its allies
flew over a Soviet blockade,
to bring desperately needed supplies
into West Berlin.
For fifteen months,
hundreds of planes landed here carrying
thousands of tons of cargo per day;
everything from milk to coal,
so the West Berliners wouldn't be
starved into submitting to Soviet control.
The Berlin Airlift served an immediate
humanitarian need,
but it was something more: It was a
clear expression of America's vision for
the economic and ideological future of a
post-WWII Europe.
Today Germany is a unified
and democratic state,
and a major economic power.
How does America's commitment
to fostering free, liberal democracies
still apply today?
Are the cries of the oppressed still
enough to rouse American action?
During 2015,
Germany admitted over
1 million refugees, many of whom
were fleeing the war in Syria.
They arrive by the busloads each day.
Men, women, entire families -
are ushered into these reception
areas to begin the long
process of registration and, eventually,
integration into German society.
Haman and his wife and two small
children fled their home when the
violence became too much to bear.
Shortly before leaving Syria,
Haman was struck in the back
by a stray bullet.
The Middle East is considered by some
to be the graveyard of empires.
Does it make sense for the US to
remain involved there?
You know, it would be lovely if the
Middle East played by Las Vegas rules.
What happens in the Middle East
stays in the Middle East.
But it doesn't.
And we're seeing that
every other day of the week,
from San Bernardino, to Brussels,
to Paris, to Orlando.
That's why the United States
has to be involved.
Now how it's involved, to what degree,
that's a separate question.
But the idea that we can simply pivot
away from the Middle East that we can
let the Middle East stew - as it were -
in its own juices,
and imagine that it will not affect us
has been disproved by the
events of the last few years,
disproved very decisively.
From the refugee crisis to the ISIS
crisis to the crisis of credibility,
all of that comes out of,
the Middle East and of our diffidence in
involving ourselves decisively,
prudently and intelligently.
Syria, Syria is dead.
There is no Syria.
I think at the very early stage in Syria,
the United States could have co-opted
the moderate opposition, armed them,
given them uniforms and arms,
and supported a moderate opposition,
which would be...was mainly a
secular opposition.
So had the United States
supported these people,
they were then in favor of democracy.
At this social center in Berlin refugees
must check in regularly to receive a small
stipend and remain eligible for asylum.
They are provided with food,
medical treatment, and clothing
by a welcoming German government.
This couple's baby twins were born just
after they fled Syria.
Their infants survived the journey but
their two older children perished at sea.
We had, under President Bush,
an over-commitment to trying to fix
broken societies.
It cost a great deal of money.
It doesn't work.
We then had, under President Obama,
a desperate desire to get out and let
the chips fall where they may,
and we've discovered that doesn't
work so well, either.
Even if we can't fix
what ails these societies,
we can shore up our friends,
our democratic friends like Israel
as well as nondemocratic friends like
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates.
We can deter aggressors,
and we can destroy those jihadi groups
that are fundamental threats to any kind
of order in the region.
We are observers...we only report.
And we don't do anything;
we don't stop people.
That's not our job.
The reason why the U.N.
is doing this is because we are impartial.
We're not taking part in any of the conflict.
So, I think that's why the U.N.
is so unique.
This is Mount Bental in the Golan Heights,
a disputed area at the northern
end of Israel.
From here, one can look down upon
Israel's border with Syria.
And just over the border is the
Syrian city of Quneitra.
It is largely abandoned now,
but gunfire can still be heard from
occasional skirmishes there...
and around 35 miles beyond that
is Syria's capital, Damascus.
For Israel, a country of only 71 miles
across at its widest,
conflicts in Syria and in the rest of
the Middle East are not some
far-off abstraction - on the contrary,
they're a very real concern.
One of the consequences of the
broken red line in Syria is that the
United States lost considerable
credibility in the eyes of Israel.
So an Israel that previously
could look to the United States
for security guarantees,
for regional guarantees,
no longer seem anywhere near as solid.
And I think the Israeli response has been,
hunker down, don't trust the Americans,
rely on your own strength
and your own wits, to make your way
in an increasingly unstable region.
The Golani Brigade stationed in northern
Israel is in a constant state of training.
The faces of these new recruits
suggests total mobilization;
the commitment of assets
both monetary and human
to maintain a defensive posture.
Nearly everyone is drafted into the
military here...but is that enough?
When it comes to the highest form of
commitment- that is to go to war
on behalf of somebody else
or with somebody else,
that's a very demanding point.
And Israel has avoided throughout its
history from asking that of the Americans.
We are ranked within the 10 leading
most powerful armies in the world.
But this comes at a very stiff price.
The (amount) Israeli people spends on
the defense budget per capita, places us
in the second or third place in the world.
To which you have to add the fact that
men and women here devote the best
years of their lives doing military stuff,
which is quite a burden.
But this is what gives Israel the
capacity it has,
which clearly, in our culture,
relates to the human factor.
For Israel, there's no substitute
for America as the ultimate ally.
No other country in the world is
going to give us- it's something in the
order of four billion dollars a year
in military aid.
No one else is going to have the joint
military movers, the intelligence sharing.
It's one of the deepest strategic
alliances which the United States
has had with any foreign country
in its Post-World War II period.
There's not going to be a substitute
for Israel.
This country is probably one of the few
countries of the world where - if the
United States military had to land
40,000 troops on somebody's shore -
they'd be greeted with flowers here and
not - it wouldn't - not rocks...or worse.
Considered an "unsinkable aircraft carrier,"
Israel is a sort of bastion
of western values in the Middle East,
and a barometer for tensions in the region.
In turn, the US has served as guarantor
of Israel's independence through
military and diplomatic support.
Has America's role
in the Middle East changed?
Is it still the ally it once was?
The United States is no longer going to
be the policeman of the world.
America is going to adopt a collegial
approach to foreign policy.
Work together with allies,
and not with traditional allies,
but with new allies;
a heavy reliance on international
institutions such as the UN;
a reluctance to project force.
America may be retreating from the
Middle East.
And if that happens, we are the losers,
because America has been so much the
mainstay of our security and has been-
and is still - our ally in so many ways.
Civilian, economic, political,
emotional, cultural, you name it.
Now if that were to happen should we
look for substitutes?
Should we look for some other powers
that could give us and with us replace
what America may be taking away?
You have great powers
emerging to the east:
the Chinese who give us no
problem about the Palestinians;
the Indians also couldn't care less
about other things.
These are the great powers.
Others said hold it, its not only the east.
We can - we have a special
relationship with Russia,
so we should not withdrawal from that
special relationship.
The scary thing is that
when America withdraws,
some of these allies become freelancers.
We sometimes criticize a country like
Saudi Arabia as a freeloader,
someone taking advantage of
American security guarantees.
But I would - I would make the argument
that on balance a freeloader is better
than a freelancer.
If Saudi Arabia acquires nuclear weapons,
which it could well do,
if Saudi Arabia starts wars on its periphery,
which it already has done,
the consequences of those actions may
ultimately be more serious to regional
and international security than the
price we have to pay for providing
Saudi Arabia with credible
security assurances.
So we are better off, globally,
when we are bonding often hostile
countries like: the Saudis, the Egyptians,
the Israelis, the Taiwanese,
the Vietnamese, to us in Washington,
rather than allowing them to spin off
unpredictably in different directions.
It is evening
at the western wall in the Jewish
quarter of the old city of Jerusalem.
The whispered prayers of the reverent
are joined by a louder devotion echoing
off the limestone blocks.
Another class of Israeli Defense Force
cadets are graduating.
The ranks of soldiers,
like Israel's lease on the land,
must constantly be renewed.
For well over a hundred years,
Great Britain had been the power that-
more or less- maintained freedom of
navigation around the world.
The Bank of England ran what was the
global monetary system of that time.
People used to call that British system
the Pax Britannica.
The one thing that was clear after World
War II was that the UK would no longer
be able to do this.
We need the kind of global common goods
that the Pax Britannica used to provide.
American exporters need to be able to
trade all over the world.
American manufacturers need to be able
to buy goods.
So how do we replace the Pax Britannica,
and what do we replace it with?
And out of that process came a mix of
institutions and policies and
commitments and we can -
we we've sort of grown used to
calling that mix the Pax Americana.
And it really is Pax Britannica 2.0.
The Port of Manila:
it is the largest port in the Philippines,
and one of the busiest in the world.
About 75 million tons of cargo pass
through here each year.
This is just a glimpse of the total
shipping industry in the South China Sea.
Each year, 5.3 trillion dollars in trade
passes through these highly-contested
waters, and US trade counts for
1.2 trillion of that total.
This is one of many small commercial
fish markets around Puerto Princesa in
the Philippines.
For the Philippines,
as with many other nations
in this part of the world,
the fish pulled daily from the water are
not just food,
they're a major livelihood.
The men who fish these waters
must be patient.
It takes long days
and longer nights to reach the areas
where the fishing is good.
The captain of this ship is only
26-years-old.
He transports the independent
fishermen and their small skiffs
where they want to go.
In exchange,
he gets a percentage of their catch.
Today they will fish the waters around
Subi Reef.
It is a rich fishing ground.
It is also the site of a major Chinese
military base.
As their boat approaches Subi Reef the
captain and the crew grow nervous.
They have been on the look-out for
warning flares or skiffs, signs that
the Chinese wanted them to leave.
At one point,
one of the fishermen comes up
from below decks.
He is afraid.
They are afraid already...our fishermen.
They're afraid? Yeah...
he told me not come more.
But we try...
Within two nautical miles of Subi Reef,
the captain loses his nerve
and turns back.
The fish near the reef belong to the
Chinese today.
Antonio Carpio is a Supreme Court
Justice and advocate for rule of law in
the South China Sea.
In the thirties,
Chinese cartographers drew several
maps claiming the Paracels, the Pratas,
some claimed the entire South China Sea.
We can pass a law in the Philippines
saying that California is part of
Philippine territory.
As long as we don't do anything about it,
the Americans wouldn't even mind.
I mean, if China draws a map saying
that the world is part of China
nobody would care,
provided they just keep it to themselves.
So, when China drew up the map
claiming the entire South China Sea,
we just smiled because it's outrageous.
However, China started to enforce it.
They seized our submerged areas.
Mischief Reef
is a submerged area at high tide.
They seized it from us in 1995.
Every time we send our survey ships
to the Reed Bank,
Chinese Coast Guard vessels would
harass them and shove them away.
And in 1988, they seized
Subi Reef from the Philippines.
Pagasa Island is but a speck in the
middle of the sea.
As fishermen work in these shallow
waters, an old wreck rusts atop the reef.
This idyllic island is one of the few
islands in the Spratly chain
with fresh water.
As a result,
Pagasa supports about 90 permanent
civilian residents,
although there are more dogs than people.
The island is also occupied by a small
navy garrison.
The Filipino sailors and marines try to
keep fit and occupied.
A major activity is drying the fish they
catch on the reef.
They have no boats,
and their defensive capabilities are
dated and meager.
The Chinese government has actually told
the Philippine government to evacuate
Pagasa Island, because according to them,
all of the islands in the
Spratly Islands are theirs.
Some of our families fear that we
might be invaded.
I think China's recent behavior is not
necessarily a surprise.
What you're seeing is almost the
implementation stage of a Chinese dream,
and that is China must be respected by
all the small countries in the region.
Pagasa is tiny.
One can easily walk across the island in
10 minutes.
How long would it take to occupy it?
In the setting sun,
the Chinese base at Subi Reef
becomes clearly visible.
The scale of the construction
is impressive.
This reef was barren and mostly
submerged just a few years ago.
Now an airstrip, hangars,
control towers, a massive light house,
and cement processing facilities rise up
out of these waters
long held by the Philippines.
From here on Pagasa,
the Filipinos watch and wait.
One of the officers describes the
standoff as a "knife at their throat."
They believe that United States,
because of the financial crisis,
U.S. has been deeply wounded.
American's economic power
has been in decline.
And that's why they say this is the time
for them to take action,
to challenge America's leadership.
Well, the United States,
for many decades,
has been a key guarantor of peace and
stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
The U.S. has been guaranteeing
freedom of navigation for all countries,
trying to create an environment in which
countries that have territorial disputes
see that it's in their interest to settle
them peacefully through negotiations,
rather than through the use of force.
If you look at China's territorial
disputes with its maritime neighbors,
most of them came as the result of
China's illegal fishing.
Eighty percent of their coastal waters
are polluted, so they have to fish
further out.
They have to go to the Exclusive
Economic Zones of the Philippines,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia.
And China has the highest per capita
consumption of fish in the world.
They have to feed 1.4 billion people.
So, their demand for fish is
very, very high.
As the boat makes its way back to the
Philippine mainland a strange looking
ship approaches.
It's a Chinese squid boat,
and it is well within the Philippines'
Exclusive Economic Zone.
This Chinese fishing fleet essentially
is China's militia.
China's government has the power,
authority, to order its fishing fleet to
off-limits in certain areas.
It's one of the few countries in the
world who can do that.
And I think they're trying to provoke a
conflict whereby China's civilian
fishing boat will be viewed as the
victim of armed patrol vessels of
another country.
Therefore, China would now justify its
own armed vessels coming in to
protect its unarmed fishing vessels.
So, they're trying to gain moral ground.
Freedom of navigation operations are
something that we have done for decades.
I've participated in many of them.
Most of them are hugely boring.
We will go through areas where
a country has made a claim
that we believe exceeds
that allowed by international law.
And so we will sail or fly through
that area, and oftentimes, indeed,
maybe even most times,
no one is even out there.
But in the case of
operations in the South China Sea
that have been conducted recently,
there have been some Chinese ships
that have come out and will
express their objection over a radio;
may follow you as long as you're in
what they perceive to be their space
and then break off and...and go away.
The US Navy is vastly larger
and more powerful than
the rest of the world's navies.
Why must the America shoulder the
burden of paying for all of this?
No one else can do it.
Look, I would love a world in which
other countries all pitched in.
We don't live in that world,
and we can't simply say, well,
because we wish we did,
we're simply going to abandon
our responsibilities.
In the meantime,
we require a world in which a strong US
naval presence guarantees our prosperity
at home, and guarantees the security of
our allies abroad.
The fishing boat passes a Chinese coast
guard ship at rest in Filipino waters.
It will be relieved every fifteen days.
It is here to monitor the Philippines'
most far-flung military outpost:
the Sierra Madre.
Intentionally grounded on a small reef
called Second Thomas Shoal this derelict
World War II vessel is permanently
manned by a ragtag group of
Filipino marines.
They had just run out of water and
gratefully accepted resupply from the
fishing boat.
They also enjoyed some luxuries
they've long been without.
The ship has no air-conditioning.
The heat is overwhelming.
The generator has been broken for months
and the marines must rely on limited
power from inadequate solar arrays.
Resupply by naval vessels is difficult -
often blockaded by the Chinese coast
guard which waits and watches.
The weapons on the aft and stern of the
Sierra Madre no longer function,
although the marines move
them from time to time so the
Chinese don't get too comfortable.
The Chinese know that that ship is still
in the roster of active
Philippine navy ships.
So it's a public vessel of the
Philippines and under the
Mutual Defense Treaty with the US,
any attack on a public vessel of the
Philippines can trigger the operation of
the Mutual Defense Treaty.
So they're just waiting for the
superstructure of the vessel to collapse.
But the problem is the US has repeatedly
said that it does not take sides in
territorial disputes in the islands and
rocks of Spratly and the other areas in
the South China Sea.
When the US said we will not take sides-
that was practically saying to China-
go ahead, grab those reefs.
And that's exactly what happened.
Second Thomas Shoal,
if the Philippines is forced to remove
their marines because they can't live
there anymore, China will take it over,
and then that will be yet another victory.
I think that every time that a country
has a dispute with a neighbor and it
wins using coercion or military
pressure...it learns bad lessons.
And I worry about some of the lessons
that China is learning.
Why not let China be left to control its
sphere of influence just like the US has
its sphere of influence?
Because China isn't the Netherlands
or New Zealand.
China is not a benign power that will
simply perform the same benign
functions that the American navy does.
China is an aggressive power with
regional designs to conquer, seize,
or control territories,
or maritime areas that other states
rightfully claim as their own.
You know a world of spheres of
influence is a world that ultimately
leads inevitably to major power conflicts.
So I'm not sure it's in anyone's
interest to create this sort of brave
new world in which China dominates
the South China Sea; and then can
exercise economic hegemony over
the United States by simply blocking
the flow of traffic in waters that are
vital to our economic self-interest.
The United States is a young nation with
a place in the world beyond its years.
To be so heavily relied upon
by so many around the world
wears on the American people.
As one diplomatic tie is bound
another frays - and all the while -
the costs in blood and treasure are high.
For how long can the United States
keep up appearances?
How long can the US remain
the world's sole superpower?
All my life, what I've been hearing
is America is in decline.
When I went to - was in elementary
school first studying arithmetic:
Sputnik: the Russians had
launched the first satellite,
obviously America's in decline;
we're falling technologically behind the
Russians; we're losing the Cold War.
Wahhh! Then, you know,
President Kennedy ran on the missile gap;
again...America's in decline,
the Russians are winning.
In the 1960s - Vietnam,
America's lost its innocence.
America's losing its first war.
It's over, woe is us.
The oil embargo: it's over, we've lost;
it's just the Arabs will rule the future.
People used to talk about Japan
the way many people have been
talking about China.
The inexorable great super power,
Japan, is eating America's lunch.
We've lost and they've won...it's all over.
So, I keep hearing that America is
in decline, and yet - it's a little bit
like that Fort McHenry moment.
The flag is still there, you know,
all the bombardments all night,
but dawn's early light,
the flag is still there.
I can personally remember about 60
years of anguish over American decline,
never actually followed
by American decline.
The United States has been the world's
policeman for just over 70 years.
It's not a long time by historical standards.
We will be the dominant power for the
rest of this century,
and we need a foreign policy that is
adequate to our primacy.
We are not going to be going into an
old age home and pensioned off
into a comfortable retirement.
We're still going to be the principal
target for the Vladimir Putins,
and Ali Khameneis and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadis of the world.
And so long as we remain
that number one nation,
we need a foreign policy that reflects
our place in the world,
our interests, our values.
It is tempting to view America as a
pompous, obtrusive hegemony;
such great power wielded
primarily out of self-interest.
Does America hold this role
by some right?
No. It does not.
America's place in the world is
maintained by its own actions;
but it is ensured by many other nations
and people of the world who rely upon
the support of the United States.
They recognize - through open gratitude
or bitter resignation- that if this Pax
Americana is not the ultimate world order,
then surely, there are no better
alternatives...at least not yet.
Major funding for this program was
provided by: Robert & Marion Oster.
Additional funding was provided by:
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
L.E. Phillips Family Foundation,
Sarah Scaife Foundation,
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,
and FedEx.
"Is America In Retreat" is
available on DVD.
For more information or to order
a DVD of this program call
1-800-876-8930 or visit
www.freetochoose.net.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét