The Chautauqua lectures offer up some remarkable speakers, notable for their influence and expertise. In this respect Robert Kagan meets the standards, and what he has to say is very compelling. I do however think his introduction and the description of his talk is misleading.
As a previous reviewer noted, Mr. Kagan is better known for his neo-conservative efforts within the Project for a New American Century, than for his work as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Mr. Kagan supports war to further U.S. interests and believes allies in the international community should be given “influence” by the U.S. only if they agree to support America’s methods to fight “terror”.
Mr. Kagan criticizes Europe’s reluctance to “engage” with troubled regions of the world. For Mr. Kagan, “engagement” means military engagement. He ignores Europe’s considerable economic, developmental and diplomatic engagement with many fractious states.
Mr. Kagan makes the argument that when the U.S. had less power it was a great supporter of international law, unlike Europe. He seems to forget that the first international peace conference was held in The Hague, the first treaties were instigated mainly by European countries and Russia.
One has to dispute Mr. Kagan’s premise that U.S. foreign policy varies little in spite who is in power. I don’t recall public discussions on the legitimacy of torture taking place under past U.S. administrations.
This program was recorded in 2004 and one can’t help think that Mr. Kagan’s views must have changed in the wake of the failed occupation of Iraq and new revelations of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan.
To re-cap, the Chautauqua lectures provide marvelous opportunities to hear speakers who are shaping our world. With a more accurate introduction to place Mr. Kagan in his proper context, this presentation is worth a listen.
This lecture presents an honest and intelligent review of international relations between the United States and the European Nations. Mr. Kagan covers a broad canvas, and his historical analysis and conclusions are intriguing and stimulating.
Although the piece is dated by references to the then-imminent 2004 election, this piece is still relevant, as the analysis rises above the domestic political newscycle.
But note this: he is for war. His argument is not at all about avoiding war, but how to legitimize American military intervention on the International stage.
Mr. Kagan is introduced here as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, but at the same time he is a co-founder and project director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, www.newamericancentury.org), and author of such articles as "Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough" (with William Kristol, New York Times, January 30, 1998). As such, he is a leading member of a right-wing think-tank which lobbied hard for war. The PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles and the signatories thereto - including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Fukuyama, Forbes, Bauer and Bush (J) - make stunning reading: there is a remarkable story here to be told.
Comments for America And The Crisis Of Legitimacy
This piece belongs to the series "Chautauqua Lectures"
Produced by WQLN-FM Erie, Pa
Other pieces by WQLN
Rating Summary
2 comments
michele ernsting
Posted on June 14, 2005 at 11:48 AM | Permalink
Review of America And The Crisis Of Legitimacy
The Chautauqua lectures offer up some remarkable speakers, notable for their influence and expertise. In this respect Robert Kagan meets the standards, and what he has to say is very compelling. I do however think his introduction and the description of his talk is misleading.
As a previous reviewer noted, Mr. Kagan is better known for his neo-conservative efforts within the Project for a New American Century, than for his work as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Mr. Kagan supports war to further U.S. interests and believes allies in the international community should be given “influence” by the U.S. only if they agree to support America’s methods to fight “terror”.
Mr. Kagan criticizes Europe’s reluctance to “engage” with troubled regions of the world. For Mr. Kagan, “engagement” means military engagement. He ignores Europe’s considerable economic, developmental and diplomatic engagement with many fractious states.
Mr. Kagan makes the argument that when the U.S. had less power it was a great supporter of international law, unlike Europe. He seems to forget that the first international peace conference was held in The Hague, the first treaties were instigated mainly by European countries and Russia.
One has to dispute Mr. Kagan’s premise that U.S. foreign policy varies little in spite who is in power. I don’t recall public discussions on the legitimacy of torture taking place under past U.S. administrations.
This program was recorded in 2004 and one can’t help think that Mr. Kagan’s views must have changed in the wake of the failed occupation of Iraq and new revelations of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan.
To re-cap, the Chautauqua lectures provide marvelous opportunities to hear speakers who are shaping our world. With a more accurate introduction to place Mr. Kagan in his proper context, this presentation is worth a listen.
jason fordham
Posted on June 05, 2005 at 11:22 PM | Permalink
Review of America And The Crisis Of Legitimacy.
Although the piece is dated by references to the then-imminent 2004 election, this piece is still relevant, as the analysis rises above the domestic political newscycle.
But note this: he is for war. His argument is not at all about avoiding war, but how to legitimize American military intervention on the International stage.
Mr. Kagan is introduced here as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, but at the same time he is a co-founder and project director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, www.newamericancentury.org), and author of such articles as "Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough" (with William Kristol, New York Times, January 30, 1998). As such, he is a leading member of a right-wing think-tank which lobbied hard for war. The PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles and the signatories thereto - including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Fukuyama, Forbes, Bauer and Bush (J) - make stunning reading: there is a remarkable story here to be told.