Mr. Rupert Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal. He gave a speech to the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., on April 21, parts of which were printed in the Journal the next day under the title Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance.
The man makes what looks on the surface like a simple and elegant point, and he encapsulates it in the last paragraph of his address. Here it is:
[As a man who was born in Australia, went to university in Britain, and made my home in America, I have learned that shared values are more important than shared borders. If we continue to define "the West" or "the Alliance" as a strictly geographical concept, the alliance will continue to erode. But if we define the West as a community of values, institutions and a willingness to act jointly, we will revive an important bastion of freedom and make it as pivotal in our own century as it was in the last.]
But to get to this point in the address, Mr. Murdoch paves an intellectual road that leaves the reader perplexed. He has two beefs. The first is that Europe is losing its faith in the values and institutions that have kept freedom alive as it is apparent in the failure of nerve he sees in Afghanistan. The second beef is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put off a bill concerning the free trade deal with Columbia by not scheduling a vote.
With regard to the first point, we might ask if Mr. Murdoch’s pessimism is balanced by something that gives him optimism in the future of the alliance. And the answer is a cautious yes. Here is the evidence for that in his own words:
[NATO's agreement to invite Albania and Croatia…is a welcome start. So is the...commitment that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO at some point…Around the world, there is no shortage of nations who share our values, and are willing to defend them. These include countries like Australia, which sent troops to Iraq…Others…are working hard to get there and would be strong partners down the road.]
So, why is Europe lagging behind when it comes to seeing things clearly and grasping what is going on in the World? Murdoch has an answer for that, and this is how he puts it.
[Unfortunately, far from reflecting our unity, NATO's entry into Afghanistan has exposed its divisions…Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies.]
But what was his vision of NATO before the organization became the weakling that he sees now? This is what he says in this regard:
[In the aftermath of World War II, statesmen…recognized that the defense of freedom would require…the Atlantic alliance. In the six decades that followed, this alliance helped the West prevail against Soviet communism.]
Clearly then, something has gotten in the way of NATO playing that same role in Afghanistan as he points out in his address. But does he say why this happened? No he does not. In fact, not once does the name Iraq appear in his address. In effect then, what Mr. Murdoch has done is urge Europe if not the whole World to unite behind the US and fight those who would not fall in line behind America’s dictates without considering for one moment the apprehension that was caused in Europe by America’s debacle in Iraq.
As to the second point, Mr. Murdoch admits that Nancy Pelosi is not alone in exhibiting protectionist sentiments. In fact, he speaks of: “the growing appeal of protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic.” But then Murdoch goes on to treat the question by committing the same sort of omission he committed while discussing the first point. Like before, he ignores the vital facts of the issue but more than that, he goes on to reveal what motivates him to do so. Here is that all important passage:
[Right now the U.S. has a test in its own backyard. Colombia is a nation that is fighting poverty, battling the drug lords, and taking on terrorists…Its citizens…want peace and opportunity. So its…president…is trying to bring the rule of law…All he asks of us is that we ratify the trade agreement…By ratifying this agreement, we would open an important market for American goods.]
Mr. Murdoch is here committing two gigantic mistakes. The first is that he is ignoring the bad advice the North Americans and the World Bank gave to the South Americans in the Nineteen Seventies. It was this advice that turned the Continent into the very rich and the desperately poor. The rich allied themselves with the “Western” powers, and the poor revolted because they used to be better off before the Americans meddled in the affairs of their countries.
As for the second mistake, Mr. Murdoch reveals how terribly insensitive he is to the needs of others. To see how he does this, look closely at that passage again. Right after he mentions that the President of Columbia wants to see the ratification of the agreement, Murdoch says the agreement would open an important market for American goods.
Now put yourself in the shoes of a South American who has all that bad history behind him and is now confronted with a future that is promising more of the same. It is not a case of more of the same because the agreement says so, most people probably have not red it, but because individuals like Rupert Murdoch are pushing for it.
Does the man at least pretend that the agreement contains something good for the people of Columbia? Apparently not because he could not care less what the people of Columbia think or feel. But Mr. Murdoch warns there will be consequences if the agreement is not ratified. And here is what he says in this regard:
[Throughout Colombia, a defeat for the trade deal would be confirmation that the U.S. is not an ally you can count on. Throughout Latin America, a defeat for the trade deal would be exploited by thugs…The same values that we are trying to uphold in the Atlantic alliance are at stake now in Colombia. And if we fail to support them in Colombia, it will be harder to revive them in the alliance.]
It is clear by now that Mr. Murdoch’s definition of what constitutes an alliance is at odds with the South American and European understanding of the concept. He sees the alliance as a community of values, institutions and a willingness to act jointly which is innocent enough until you realize what his values are, what he is willing to do and willing to ignore, and what his joint actions will lead up to.
The man wants to revive the old bastion of freedom and make it pivotal in this century as it was in the last. The trouble is that Mr. Murdoch has shown to be not a man for the Twenty First Century but a man right out of the Nineteenth Century where gunboat diplomacy was the sterling invention of the day.
Take it from me, Mr. Murdoch, those days are gone for ever. Everywhere in the World, the sight of a Chinese or European plan of development will elicit more jubilation than the sight of an American warship will elicit fear. This is not to say there will be no place for warships; there will be. Just look where the dinosaurs have gone and you’ll see a place where the warships will finally go to rest in peace.