“Such a
confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference
table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral,
economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past
frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”—Soldier
and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), “Military-Industrial Complex” Speech (Farewell Address to the Nation), Jan. 17, 1961
The last
televised speech of Dwight Eisenhower to his countrymen, which occurred 65 years ago today, might be the
most famous Presidential farewell address since George Washington left office,
largely because the former Allied commander at D-Day unexpectedly cautioned
about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex" that had developed in
America because of World War II and the Cold War.
But, as I
discovered when I read the text in full, other aspects of his speech have also
proved relevant, in ways that few could have anticipated at the time.
Take
scientific research, for instance. Ike not only speculated that “public
policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,”
but conversely also admonished against “the prospect of domination of the
nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money.”
If the second danger sounds familiar to you, it should. Keep in mind, for instance, this blog post from earlier this week from science magazine EOS:
"Academic science has been under pressure not only through the administration’s targeting of universities directly but also through its efforts to remake the federal grantmaking process, reduce the amounts and types of external research funded, and reduce budget appropriations for scientific research by more than 20% through large-scale cutbacks and reorganizations in federal science agencies. Unsurprisingly, the administration’s actions are having ripple effects for higher education, business (among companies who supply scientific products, for instance), and public health."
But the
section of the speech that should receive the most renewed attention is the
quote above, especially in light of Donald Trump’s refusal to rule out military force if the United States can’t purchase Greenland from Denmark.
As NATO’s
first Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Eisenhower knew the organization’s
importance in deterring the aggression of a larger power against a smaller
nation. After all, two world wars in which he served began in precisely this
manner.
He would
be embarrassed at the thought that a later President of his own party is
threatening the independence of a smaller member of NATO—and in this case, as
well as in the current President’s inexplicable preference for Russia over
Ukraine, is also risking the very existence of the alliance.
In a blog post from last March, David Lake, a senior fellow at the University of
California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, adeptly summarized the
implications of this:
“This is
the most basic rule of leadership: leaders need followers, and others will
follow only if they are confident the leader is taking them where they want to
go. To accept U.S. influence over their foreign policies, allies must have some
confidence that Washington will be attentive to their needs. Allowing another
country to exert authority over one’s policies is an awesome choice, and one
made only if the ally is confident that this authority will be wielded in the
common interest. In ignoring Europe, in the case of Ukraine; initiating trade
wars and putting tariffs on our allies even before our geopolitical
competitors; disparaging NATO; threatening to seize the Panama Canal,
Greenland, and possibly Canada; and intervening in the domestic politics of our
allies, Trump is flouting the basic rule of leadership."
No comments:
Post a Comment