Kissinger avoids concluding that the cause of world turmoil has been Obama's personal, ideological, religious biases, charitably viewed as weakness and dithering. Instead, he timidly hints at taking the easy way out and lacking a strategy, which more accurately describes what Kissinger himself is doing here.
From his foreign policy wonk perspective, Kissinger views financial crises as caused by tension between multinational corporations and individual countries: a statist perspective. A conservative would view these crises as generated by government fiscal and monetary meddling in the economy. For example, he sees the tribulations of the PIIGS as resulting from EU 'structural misdesign'. That is the perspective of a socialist who insists that "we'll get it right next time". The reality is that the EU adventure is a German and French exercise in self-interest and the PIIGS are collateral damage.
Obtuse expression cannot bring peace with honor.
PIIGS? Like Germany and Spain? LOL
This DeGaulle pap was designed expressly to compete with the USA, which they can’t.
Fer Criess sake, they can’t even manage to thump another country without using us as their proxy.
I think Kissinger does in fact miss an opportunity to take a swipe at Obama.
however, Kissinger is really about harmonizing governments world wide, while the rest if would be happy to merely export our values,kick some ass once in a while (we’re Americans and we love a good fight) and be 1st on the scene of any disaster, if we can, and provide the worlds best emergency services and plant a beacon of hope.
FK the U.N.
Kissinger gives us the ultimate GOPe RINO view of the world on foreign policy.
The GOPe will criticize the tone of Obama’s policy, the level of sanctions, the level of military force used to “police” our enemies, the color of his suit etc. etc.
But put them in power and nothing will change. There will be no war with Russia over Ukraine for example just like there was no war with the Soviets when they shot down a Korean airliner when Reagan was president.
A nation with nuclear weapons has protection from military consequences for its aggressive actions. That’s what makes Iran’s nuclear program so dangerous....
For example, he sees the tribulations of the PIIGS as resulting from EU 'structural misdesign'. That is the perspective of a socialist who insists that "we'll get it right next time". The reality is that the EU adventure is a German and French exercise in self-interest and the PIIGS are collateral damage.
I agree the EU is a structural misdesign, but I don't think it's a socialist statement at all. It goes back to what is Europe and what is the EU to Europe? Is Europe the map boundries set out in the 1600's? Is it the 15 Christian nations with the shared common values and ideals of Winston Churchill? Or a group of democratic sub-sovereign nations with common goals for mutual defense with one-source diplomacy of Kissinger's liking? Is the EU, as some would dream, simply a free-for-all trade zone from the arctic to the antarctic regardless of commonality? Is it a welfare organization?
Are PIIGS 'collateral damage,' or are they just small nations that will always be impacted more by recessions because of their size? Do PIIGS members expect a common universal standard of living in addition to multilateral trade benefits offered by the EU?
Spain now draws US$420 million annually in support payments from the EU and the US. That's about what they received after WW2. Why? What's the mandate for continuous Marshall Plans? No doubt the Germans and French are careful of their pocketbooks.
Spain and Italy were isolated by the rest of Europe after WW2 because of their support for Hitler, who destroyed Greece. All three nations' were rebuilt into modern economies on an influx of post-war American millions. Italy was able to compensate for an internal blackmarket economy equal to 25% of its GDP and it's over-concentration of small (3.6 employee) businesses, Spain enjoyed an influx of sent-home remittances equal to 20% of their GDP, Greece found an industrial side and it's own remittence heaven. After the world recession hit in 08 the remitters returned home as unemployment pensioners - to an unprepared country. Wasn't 50 years of subsidized prosperity and absolute safety long enough to have planned for such an event and so ensure the future of the PIIGS? Especially after the warnings of the 70's oil crisis and the 90's recession? I don't think it's really fair to label PIIGS as 'collateral damage.'