Pregled posta

Marketing

On 13 September 2011 the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) organized a seminar with Adam M. Garfinkle, the editor of The American Interest entitled “Central Europe in the U.S. Grand Strategy: on the sidelines or on the rise?”

In the first part of his lecture Mr Garfinkle posed the question, whether the U.S. Grand Strategy does, or has ever existed. Looking back at different phases in the history of American foreign policy from as early as the First World War, Mr Garfinkle concluded, that the U.S. maintained its popularity and leadership position not thank to pursuing an admirable Grand Strategy, but rather on grounds of recursive credibility. Except for a restrained group of professionals directly in charge of foreign and security matters, most American citizens and even politicians wouldn’t be able to identify the Grand Strategy of the US.

Upon coming to the question of the place of Central Europe on the American foreign policy agenda Mr Garfinkle expressed his view with what Mr Zaborowski called “refreshing honesty”: Central Europe is, has never been and will probably never constitute a strategic interest for the U.S. During the Cold War it was dealt with as an adjunct to the USSR, nowadays as an adjunct of the European Union and Russia. The reason for this according to Mr Garfinkiel is that in Central Europe there is simply no sufficient trouble to gain voice and visibility globally: there is neither high-scale terrorism to be countered, no wars to be stopped.

Following the lecture the audience was given the opportunity to address a number of questions to the guest speaker. Mr Garfinkle was asked to outline the U.S. relations with the major poles of influence of the world, like China, Russia and the Middle East
(According to Mr Garfinkle relations with Russia are almost as frozen as during the Cold War, moreover, no spectacular improvement can be expected since “no nation can jump out of its history”. China, despite its spectacular rise, is not seen by the US as a threat at the scale of the Soviet Union formerly. Regarding the policy towards the Middle East, due to the lack of a fundamental understanding of the region itself and its culture, there is also no strategic concept of the U.S. towards this area. Policy is shaped on an ad-hoc basis through by case-by-case decisions.)

Being asked about the position the U.S. would take in the event of a Russian aggression against Poland, Mr Garfinkiel pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is malfunctional in as much as there is a gap between responsabilities the U.S. nominally assumes and its financial capabilities. Therefore, instead of relying on alliances Poland should rather focus on building its own self-defense capacity. Mr Garfinkle also indicated that the key area of concern for Polish security is Belarus, hence that is where most diplomatic efforts should be invested.

Photo by Jadwiga Winiarska

On 13 September 2011 the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) organized a seminar with Adam M. Garfinkle, the editor of The American Interest entitled “Central Europe in the U.S. Grand Strategy: on the sidelines or on the rise?”

In the first part of his lecture Mr Garfinkle posed the question, whether the U.S. Grand Strategy does, or has ever existed. Looking back at different phases in the history of American foreign policy from as early as the First World War, Mr Garfinkle concluded, that the U.S. maintained its popularity and leadership position not thank to pursuing an admirable Grand Strategy, but rather on grounds of recursive credibility. Except for a restrained group of professionals directly in charge of foreign and security matters, most American citizens and even politicians wouldn’t be able to identify the Grand Strategy of the US.

Upon coming to the question of the place of Central Europe on the American foreign policy agenda Mr Garfinkle expressed his view with what Mr Zaborowski called “refreshing honesty”: Central Europe is, has never been and will probably never constitute a strategic interest for the U.S. During the Cold War it was dealt with as an adjunct to the USSR, nowadays as an adjunct of the European Union and Russia. The reason for this according to Mr Garfinkiel is that in Central Europe there is simply no sufficient trouble to gain voice and visibility globally: there is neither high-scale terrorism to be countered, no wars to be stopped.

Following the lecture the audience was given the opportunity to address a number of questions to the guest speaker. Mr Garfinkle was asked to outline the U.S. relations with the major poles of influence of the world, like China, Russia and the Middle East
(According to Mr Garfinkle relations with Russia are almost as frozen as during the Cold War, moreover, no spectacular improvement can be expected since “no nation can jump out of its history”. China, despite its spectacular rise, is not seen by the US as a threat at the scale of the Soviet Union formerly. Regarding the policy towards the Middle East, due to the lack of a fundamental understanding of the region itself and its culture, there is also no strategic concept of the U.S. towards this area. Policy is shaped on an ad-hoc basis through by case-by-case decisions.)

Being asked about the position the U.S. would take in the event of a Russian aggression against Poland, Mr Garfinkiel pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is malfunctional in as much as there is a gap between responsabilities the U.S. nominally assumes and its financial capabilities. Therefore, instead of relying on alliances Poland should rather focus on building its own self-defense capacity. Mr Garfinkle also indicated that the key area of concern for Polish security is Belarus, hence that is where most diplomatic efforts should be invested.

Photo by Jadwiga Winiarska