American Alliances: Termination or Transformation
| Author | Charles P. Schleicher |
| Published date | 01 September 1961 |
| Date | 01 September 1961 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/106591296101400355 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
36
handicapped
largely
by
factors
beyond
the
control
of
professional
&dquo;image
manipulators.&dquo;
To
all
of
this
must
be
added
the
further
consideration,
also
largely
beyond
our
control,
that,
in
view
of
recent
demographic
data
and
the
disproportion
of
factors
promoting
instability
in
the
new
African
and
Asian
states,
significant
portions
of
the
free
world
are
moving
toward
economic,
social,
and
political
chaos.
The
threatening
bankruptcy
of
democratic
alternatives
will
invite
blame,
and
the
things
we
did-or
failed
to
do-are
bound
to
attract
censure.
As
a
final
consideration,
it
should
be
noted
that
this
is
an
age
of
redressing
racial
inequalities
and
injustices.
Perhaps
it is
useful
to
note
in
this
connection
the
negative
reaction
of
Nigerian
university
students
to
President
Kennedy’s
Peace
Corps:
&dquo;We
don’t
want
your
American
superiority
flaunted
in
our
faces,
because
in
fact
we
don’t
recognize
this
superiority.&dquo;
The
conclusion
would
have
been
the
same
if
the
explanatory
clause
had
read,
&dquo;because
in
fact
we
do
recognize
this
superiority.&dquo;
Psychologically,
the
case
would
indeed
be
stronger.
It
would
seem
in
the
order
of
things
that
white
and
non-white
will
get
farther
apart
before
they
can
work
closely
together
again.
AMERICAN
ALLIANCES:
TERMINATION
OR
TRANSFORMATION
CHARLES
P.
SCHLEICHER
University
of
Oregon
The
past
fourteen
years
witnessed
the
reversal
of
our
historical
policy
from
entangling
alliances
with
none
to
entanglement
with
all.
Entanglement
was
typical
of
our
mood
from
about
1950
through
1955;
our
goal
was
to
bi-
polarize
the
world.
Since
January
20,
1961,
nonalignment
has
become
not
only
officially
acceptable,
but
respectable
and
even
commendable.
To
some
extent
our
policy
response
to
nonalignment
has
been
the
child
of
necessity.
But
it
has
also
been
accompanied
by
a
new
look
at
our
larger
policy
goals
and
the
role
of
the
nonaligned
nations
therein.
Many
who
view
our
foreign
policy
as
serving
some
indefinable
abstraction
called
the national
interest,
but
who
usually
seem
to
mean
national
security,
stress
formal
alliances
and
tend
to
condemn
nonalignment.
A
competing
point
of
view
holds
that
our
basic
goal
is,
or
ought
to
be,
the
building
of
a
new
world
order,
one
in
which
there
will
be
the
widest
possible
room
for
individual
freedom
and
diversity,
conducted
in
a
framework
of
cooperation
and
peaceful
conflict.
The
principal
international
conflict
is
conceived
as
one
between
two
groups
who
want
to
build
different
kinds
of
world
order.
It
is
not
denied
that
American
security
and
other
values
are
endangered
and
need
to
be
secured.
It
is
contended,
however,
that
concentration
on
national
interests
and
security
will
be
self-defeating.
These
interests
can
be
furthered
only
if
they
are
transcended.
Do
these
considerations
discredit
alliances?
This
does
not
necessarily
follow.
But
it
does
mean
that
alliance
policies
should
be,
as
I
think
they
are
beginning
to
be,
conducted
with
the
larger
goal
in
view.
Specifically,
it
means
To continue reading
Request your trial