View Single Post
  #41  
Old Thursday, January 26, 2023
hammadtahir hammadtahir is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 117
Thanks: 4
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
hammadtahir is on a distinguished road
Post 2021 Comprehension

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.
In its response to 9/11, America has shown itself to be not only a hyperpower but increasingly assertive and ready to use its dominance as a hyperpower. After declaring a War on Terrorism, America has led two conventional wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating its overwhelmingly awesome military might. But these campaigns reveal something more: America’s willingness to have recourse to arms as appropriate and legitimate means to secure its interests and bolster its security. It has set forth a new doctrine: the right of pre-emptive strike when it considers its security, and therefore its national interests, to be at risk. The essence of this doctrine is the real meaning of hyperpower.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently argued that only option in the face of hyperpower is to offer wise counsel. But increasingly this is a course that governments and people across the world have refused. The mobilization for war against Iraq split the United Nations and provoked the largest anti-war demonstrations the world has ever seen. And through it all, America maintained its determination to wage war alone if necessary and not to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments when they faithfully represented the wishes of their electorates. Rather than engaging in debate, the American government expressed its exasperation. The influential new breed of neoconservative radio and television hosts went much further. They acted as ringmasters for outpourings of public scorns that saw French fries renamed ‘freedom fries’ and moves to boycott French and German produce across America. If one sound-bite can capture a mood, then perhaps it would be Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. At the height of the tension over a second Security Council resolution to legitimate war in Iraq, Mr. O’Reilly told his viewers that the bottom line was security, the security of his family, and in that matter ‘There’s no moral equivalence between the US and Belgium.’ It is, in effect, the ethos of hyperpower articulated and made manifest in the public domain of 24-hour talk. And America’s willingness to prosecute war has raised innumerable questions about how it engages with other countries. Afghanistan has seen the removal of the Taliban. But there are no official statistics on the number of innocent civilians dead and injured to achieve that security objective. The people of Afghanistan have witnessed a descent into the chaos that preceded the arrival of the Taliban, a country administered not by a new era of democracy under the tutelage of the hyperpower, but merely by the return of the warlords. Beyond Kabul, much of the country remains too insecure for any meaningful efforts at reconstruction and there is enormous difficulty in bringing relief aid to the rural population.

1. Why does the doctrine of power set by neo-imperial America deny space to counselling?
The doctrine of power set by neo-imperial America denies space to counselling because it considers its security and national interests to be of utmost importance. In order to achieve the desired results, the hyperpower neo-imperial America is always ready to act unilaterally and even resort to pre-emptive strike if needed and use its dominance as a hyperpower. They also express frustration and disdain towards governments and people who disagree with their actions, and do not engage in debate.

2. What is the essence of ‘moral equivalence’ whereas War has no moral justification?
The essence of ‘moral equivalence’ signifies both the equality in capabilities as well as willingness to wage war in order to protect one’s national interests when there is a perceived threat emanating from the hostile state. On the other hand, at the same time, war has also no moral justification whatsoever because it results in the loss of many innocent lives.

3. Why do countries occupied and under the tutelage of hyperpower have no peace?
Countries occupied and under the tutelage of hyperpower have no peace because they are often subject to military campaigns led by the hyperpower, which can result in the removal of existing governments, destruction of infrastructure, and loss of civilian lives. Additionally, these countries may not have a stable or effective new government or administration put in place, leading to chaos and insecurity.

4. Arguably Europe and hyperpower US are at cross purposes over the concept of war. Are they? Why?
Europe and the United States are at cross purposes over the concept of war because Europe generally has a more cautious approach towards using military force, and may disagree with the United States' willingness to engage in pre-emptive strikes and go to war without the support of the United Nations or other allied countries.

5. What Tony Blair’s meant by ‘wise counsel’, and did it prevail?
Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently argued that the only option in the face of hyperpower is to offer wise counsel which means to advice the belligerent nations to go for a pragmatic solution to avoid the bloodshed as much as possible. It is not clear if this approach ultimately prevailed in the case of the war in Iraq, as the United Kingdom participated in the war despite widespread opposition.
Reply With Quote