|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Defending Decent Principles
| Article
# : |
12734 |
|
|
Section : |
BOOK WORLD
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1987 |
2,439 Words |
| Author
: |
Herbert London
Herbert London is dean of the Gallatin Division of New
York University and Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute. |
ENDLESS ENEMIES
The Making of an Unfriendly World
Jonathan Kwitny
New York: Penguin, 1986
434 pp., $8.95
Since the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, some people conclude that the sun revolves around them. Similarly, there are those who will argue that their experience is so generalizable as to provide the basis for grand theories of human behavior; their experience is a veritable ontology of experience. Yet, while it may sometimes appear as if the sun beckons us or as if our personal experience is a reflection of mankind's, humility or common sense usually dictate somewhat less grandiose understanding. Had Joanathan Kwitny been sensitive to this problem his book Endless Enemies: The Making of An Unfriendly World would be more of a contribution to scholarship than it is.
Kwitny's book has received considerable attention. As a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, erstwhile member of the Peace Corps, and someone who has traveled in more than eighty countries and written extensively, his views deserve attention. Moreover, he is a soi disant defender of American values and the free market. He therefore advances his view on the foreign policy establishment from the side of the political spectrum that usually engages in its defense. However, Kwitny has used his prodigious talents as a journalist to develop a conspiracy theory of American foreign policy that is not entirely credible - and to suggest noninterventionism as the solution.
Admittedly, American foreign policy has defects and U.S. intervention has had deleterious effects on some nations. State Department decisions, moreover, have been affected by powerful families such as the Rockefellers or financiers like Maurice Tempelsman, who has extraordinary financial interests in Africa. Various smaller investors have on occasion manipulated events to suit their purposes. Anticommunism has been at times the ratiocination for American recklessness abroad. But after all of this is said, what conclusions can one draw? Is it reasonable to suggest that our venality resembles implicitly or explicitly the venality of the Soviets? It is logical to conclude that because we often act maladroitly in international affairs, we should not intervene at all? Does the evidence indicate that a cabal of businessmen, bankers, State Department officials, and lawyers mold policy to suit narrowly defined and selfish
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
