South of the James

By Conaway B. Haskins III

Black Athlete Sports Network, March 21, 2005

Jay McNair was introduced to golf by his grandfather when he was just ten years old. Since then, this 30 year-old DC native has developed a healthy obsession for the game. When not working at his day job as a school administrator in Brandon, Florida, he can be found teeing it up at Rogers Park Golf Course. A one-time professional golfer, he admits to not having many other interests “outside of golf. With me, it’s working and then golf. Everything I do revolves around it. Even when I read, I’m reading golf books and magazines.”

After playing for three years on Florida A&M’s Division I golf squad, he graduated in 1998 and took a job as school teacher. On the side, he worked as an assistant professional at a local course and played in regional tournaments throughout Florida. Occasionally, he played in regional tournaments. “I was what you’d call a check casher,” he said, “I shot low enough to win money.”

Mostly playing in local tournaments and in private competitions for cash, McNair says that he would “work from 6am to 2pm [at his school post] and then try to find a game and make $50-60. It was about just loving to play. I didn’t do a lot of practice. I’d just tee it up and play for whatever.” An admittedly competitive person, he says that he would “try to beat [opponents] and take [their] money because I didn’t make any money as an assistant pro. I was playing people I knew I could beat. That was my attitude.”

McNair’s interest in the game helped him earn a spot as a finalist on the fall and winter season. The Golf Channel’s hit reality show, “The Big Break II.” Ironically, it was his girlfriend, who watched the first season of the show, who encouraged him to apply. She even helped him fill out the proper applications and do the necessary follow-up. He says, “She did all the work.” In February 2004, he got a call from The Golf Channel inviting him to Miami for an audition.

McNair had to rely on his golf skills before he set foot at the audition. Since he was low on cash, he says that he hit the golf course to make money for the trip. “I went out to a weekend skins game and put my last $20 up and made a few side bets. I won $400, picked up my girlfriend, and went straight to Miami,” he laughs. “We had a good time, stayed in a nice hotel, and went to Doral for the audition.”

The Golf Channel selected 9 golfers through the auditions, and the tenth selection - which was McNair - was picked by the viewers. As a result, he got the nickname “Viewer’s Choice.” Unfortunately for him, his time was short-lived as he was the second contestant eliminated. Although he only spent two days at the competition site in Las Vegas, McNair jokes, “It was hard not to enjoy the 48 hours I was there. The treatment was first class.”

A few months after his stint on the show, McNair was promoted from a classroom teacher to an administrative position. The added responsibility means that he has less time to spend on the course. He says, “I’m a weekend golfer now [mostly] playing on Saturdays and Sundays.”

Though he was only on the show briefly, as a Big Break II finalist, he was awarded an exemption on to the 2005 Hooters Tour, allowing him to enter events without having to qualify. So far, because of the time commitments with his job, McNair has not entered any events he says that he does not have time to focus on improving his game.

Not wanting to incur the expenses of playing, he now says, “I have to reassess how dedicated I am to [professional golf]. I got to figure out a way to still get my golf in. It’s tough, but such is life.” He has no regrets about advancing his teaching career at the expense of his golf career, and is reconsidering his plans. “I will never be the guy to sit here and tell you I want to be on the PGA tour. My goal is to play professionally every single day. I don’t care what tour. I just want the opportunity to do it. My goals are short and sweet. If I can’t see it in a year or 2, I don’t look at it. I don’t have 10 year goals.”

Despite not being able to play pro golf in the near term, McNair believes that the world of professional golf is looking up for African Americans seeking pro careers. “It’s not so much about Tiger turning it around, but the golfing community respects us as players. If we get opportunity, it’s going to happen soon. There are a lot of good black players around. The old days of this being a white sport are over.”

He sees other black golf pros as being optimistic about their futures. “The guys that I know, they’re not using the black golfer thing as a crutch any more. Investors [who provide financial backing to players] will give anyone a chance if you’re good.” Despite being at the crossroads of his golf career, McNair is certain that if he has the opportunity to play in the pro ranks, he will do well. He says, “If I could do it full-time, I’d raise some hell and cash some checks.” In the meantime, he will keep taking it one hole at a time.

by Webster Brooks IIIIntroduction

Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, George W. Bush is the first president to advance a comprehensive foreign policy that defines America’s role as the pre-imminent global superpower in the New World Order. In the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, the “Bush Doctrine” placed the United States in the vanguard of the Global War Against Terrorism that divided the international community between “those who are with us “and” those who are against us.” Building on the momentum of the Iraqi national elections in January 2005, Bush has since promoted a forced march to usher in the era of New Global Democracy using all the political, economic and military tools at his disposal to re-configure the geo-political equation.

The flurry of activity surrounding President Bush’s trip to Europe in February, underscored increasing tension in the Atlantic Alliance over the re-alignment of the global balance of power. In many ways, today’s international situation is as dangerous now as it has been since the Cuban missile crisis pushed the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war in 1962. This heightened danger goes beyond the terrorist threat of Islamic fundamentalists.

The new arithmetic in which nuclear warheads and weapons still sit throughout the former Soviet empire remains the X-factor in matters of world peace and security. Emerging nations are aggressively attempting to acquire, develop and sell nuclear weapons systems to clients adverse to America’s national security interests. This has added a new dimension of global instability. Moreover, should Russia’s fragile democracy falter, Central Europe and the Near East could tumble into chaos. The Middle East is the throes of political transition in which nationalism, religious fundamentalism and democratic struggles against authoritarian rule spell future tumult. And, a potential long-term showdown between the U. S. and China looms on the horizon. These realities of the New World Order pose great challenges to American foreign policy.

In this statement “In Search of a New World Order,” Low Country identifies the major flashpoints of contention that will dominate America’s foreign policy agenda. Prior to outlining these issues a few general observations are in order.

Then and Now

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, the United States is the unquestioned leader of the world community. However, its position of economic and military strength is not as formidable as it was after World War 2. In the late 1940’s, the U.S. was the only nation with nuclear weapons. The devastation of war left much of Europe in economic ruin and weakened Britain and France’s military and financial position as colonial powers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Under these circumstances the United States enjoyed a decisive economic and military advantage.

Today the U.S. is no longer the only nation with nuclear capability. The severe strain the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have imposed on U.S. military personnel, logistical support and equipment has revealed that our armed forces capacity to fight a sustained ground war has real limitations.

The U.S. victory in the Cold War over Communism was a non-military triumph. And while U.S. capital has penetrated Eastern Europe and pierced the Chinese Wall, our competitive edge, economically speaking is increasingly being challenged by China’s muscular growth in the Pacific Rim, the European Union, Russia’s neocolonial designs in Eurasia and the growth of India. The populations of China and India alone comprise 40% of the world’s population and the economic cooperation pact signed between the two nations in April 2005 is an indication of what the future will hold. In short, the United States will never enjoy a period like the 30-year run it had between the mid 1940’s and the mid-1970’s to assert global economic dominion.

These realities have tremendous implications as the process of global re-alignment pushes forward and the “Bush Doctrine” evolves. The current tension between the United States and the European Union is but a reflection of this phenomenon. Bush’s fence mending trip to Europe in February was the first step in smoothing the rough edges of his policies that were leading to a dangerous level of resentment and isolation, aggravated by the manner in which the U.S. prosecuted the Iraq War.

It is noteworthy that Bush’s trip to Europe yielded precious few results. He was only able to secure nominal financial aid from the Europeans to help underwrite the costs of the Iraqi conflict and reconstruction. Bush humbled himself somewhat on the issue of allowing the Europeans to take the lead in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, but his options were extremely limited. As to most of the advice Bush received from his embittered Atlantic allies, Bush said he would “listen and think about it.” In Slovenia, at a very uncomfortable press conference Bush lectured Premier Putin over the reversal of democratic reforms in Russia. But he did secure a minor agreement with the Russians to jointly scale down MANPADS weapons systems.

The “Nuclear Club”

Today, there are eight members of the nuclear club (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India). It is North Korea and Iran’s admission to “the club” without an invitation that has been the source of some acrimony within the Atlantic Alliance and has placed the U.S. on the horns of sharp dilemma.

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration made no effort to negotiate or even conduct low level talks with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. When former Secretary of State Powell opened up a back-door diplomatic channel to begin a dialogue, Bush shut the door and publicly humiliated Powell in doing so. Bush’s hard line may have played well to his base and Defense Department hawks, but it did little to thwart North Korea’s acquisition of enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons. In March of 2005, for the first time the North Korean government admitted to having nuclear weapons, and a growing body of evidence suggests they are attempting to sell nuclear technology to several potential clients.

Bush has insisted that the U.S. will not engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea and that all negotiations with North Korea will be done through the Six-Nations Talks (North & South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S.). His administration has stepped up its pressure on China to help broker a deal. This is a flawed strategy that can only work if the Six Nations can offer Kim Jung Il an economic package that will rescue his regime. But therein lays the problem. Bush does not want Jung in power, with or without nukes. Furthermore, while most people assume that China has an interest in de-nuclearizing North Korea, it is more likely that China is indifferent to nukes in North Korea unless they receive substantial reciprocation for brokering a deal with Jung, as well as an acknowledged role in the future of North Korea.

The Bush administration has failed to answer a basic question as it regards its position toward North Korea; to what end has Jung sought to develop a nuclear program? It is not uncommon to read reports about Kim being an unbalanced madman, but he has managed to hold on and consolidate power since his father’s death–a feat few thought was possible, and he has pushed a poor country with no clout to the top of the nuclear club’s agenda.

Surrounded by Russia and China, and with a small U.S. presence in South Korea, it is improbable that North Korea is under the illusion that they can threaten and bully its neighbors into submission. The North Korean economy is in shambles and they cannot project substantial power beyond their borders. North Korea’s nuclear designs are meant to be a deterrent against invasion. Being a member of the nuclear club also gives North Korea and Kim international status that other small nations do not enjoy.

More importantly North Korea’s ability to sell nuclear technology to a growing list of clients for a variety of favors is the driving force behind their nuclear designs. Thus, halting the possible export of nuclear technology from North Korea is the principal threat to global and U.S. security, and its prevention should be the overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Given the increased deterioration of the North Korean economy, striking a deal to scrap its nuclear weapons program in exchange for massive foreign aid and investment may be Jung’s ticket to survival.

For this reason, the Six Nations talks could succeed if the right aid package is formulated, but it will require substantial buy-in from the United States. The Bush Administration does not appear to want to buy-in at any cost. This is a similar position Bush took regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Bush Administration was not going to engage until Arafat was no longer part of the equation. With the death of Arafat, the Bush foreign policy team executed an about face. It is not a dangerous gamble to play a game of nuclear chicken with Kim Jung Il, nor is it likely that he will expire from old age as did Arafat, any time soon. The longer it takes to get an agreement the more substantial his program and the price for scrapping it in return for economic aid becomes.

The Iranian Option

Unlike North Korea, Iran is clearly moving to become a regional power and spread the influence of Islamic theocratic statecraft to the Middle East and the Southern Caucuses of the former Soviet Union. Iran has a substantial landmass, sufficient oil and gas reserves to generate petro-dollars, a strategic location in the Persian Gulf, growing influence in Iraq, and plenty of technical and intellectual firepower to emerge as major player on the international scene. Therefore its desire to acquire and build a nuclear weapons program poses a far more serious long-term problem for the U.S. than does that of North Korea.

Bush’s threat of possible U.S. military action against Iran if they go nuclear in his State of the Union address smacked of adolescent carnival. While it’s clear Iran’s ruling hard-line clerics want to acquire the technology to create fissile material for developing a nuclear weapon, they will not deterred by the threat of U.S. military response. The U.S. is barely holding its own militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. A land mass invasion of Iran is out of the question and even the effectiveness of a future air strike to surgically remove potential development facilities is a high risk venture with a low probability of success. By the time Bush had returned from his European trip in February, he repeated stated that the United States had no interest in attacking Iran.

The reformers in Iran are going to lose the upcoming Spring 2005 elections, and there is no prospect that a mass movement will displace Iran’s hard-line religious mullahs that have proved to be remarkably resilient. The U.S. is throwing its weight behind the Europeans to broker a negotiated settlement to neuter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Although the United States is pressuring Iran to drop its nuclear program their efforts are being undermined by countries like China, Russian and most recently the Ukraine, all of which are supplying technology that will help Iran develop its nuclear power facilities. Iran just concluded a 25-year deal to sell $20 billion in liquefied natural gas to China, and an $80 billion preliminary accord for oil and gas sales to China in exchange for help to develop Iran’s Yadavaran oil field. This is a critical development for Iran whose oil production infrastructure requires needed improvements.

Bordering on Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that both have U.S. military forces on the ground, It may be easy for American’s to forget that the U.S. sponsored the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government a half-century ago and installed the Shah who rivaled Saddam Hussein in brutality and suppression. Nor have Iranians forgotten that it was the U.S. that backed Hussein in their devastating war they had with Iran, which cost the nation millions of lives. The Iranian people have not forgotten. Thus there is not a political inducement for Iran to soften its stance against the U.S. Quite the opposite; the U.S. presence in the Middle East has only strengthened the hard-line clerics’ position within Iran.

On the other hand, it one thing to work towards developing a nuclear weapon, and it is quite another to have one. And that is the debate that is going on amongst the hard liners and the reformist clerics in Iran today. Led by former Prime Minister Hashemi Rafsanjani, the reformist clerics are concerned that chronic unemployment, corruption and patronage among religious elite will continue to push the country to desperate straights. Should Iran go nuclear, they will likely face very stiff sanctions from far more nations that just the United States, and this will exacerbate their internal situation. This is an extremely sticky situation for the United States, whose hard line position toward Iran, and its past history of involvement in undermining Iran’s democratic revolution and its Islamic revolution has given it little credibility to negotiate. The U.S. in now in a position in which it must rely on the Europeans to broker a deal that gives Iran iron clad economic incentives to halt its nuclear programs–incentives that must structured to economically benefit Iran’s growing middle class and begin to create the internal pressure for gradual democratic reforms and strengthens the position of the reformist Islamic clerics.

The Iron Curtain is Down but What About the Wall?

In this new global arrangement, notwithstanding the relatively tranquil relations between Washington and Beijing, China continues to represent the most significant long-term economic, political, and military adversary of the U.S. This nation of over one billion citizens has been the principal beneficiary of a host of international problems that the U.S. has been marinating in from Kabul to the West Bank. China has taken advantage of these regional conflicts to slowly and methodically project power in the Pacific Rim and beyond.

In April 2005 China passed an anti-secession law that made it illegal for citizens of Taiwan to advocate for independence. No sooner than the act was passed was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispatched to Beijing to voice the United States level of discomfort with the measure. Rice was also there to urge the Chinese to forcefully step up its efforts to get North Korea back to the negotiating table to resume the Six Nations Talks, aimed at halting North Koreas nuclear program. China has long been regarded as the one nation with substantial leverage over North Korea, but in Low Country’s view, China is in no hurry to pressure Kim Jong Il, on the issue. They have little to fear from tiny North Korea and their nuclear weapons program. When Rice suggested China was dragging its feet, the Chinese Foreign Minister laughed and said that it was China that got the talks started in the first place.

If China is dragging its feet on North Korea, they have been moving quickly to conclude agreements to ensure its access to energy sources. Reports continue to surface that China is providing nuclear technology to Iran, and it return are moving to conclude deals to import Iranian Oil. Similar discussions are underway with the Ukraine, and the newly independent nations on the Caspian Sea, that include Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, not to mention holding talks with oil rich Nigeria.

Also, high on Secretary Rice’s agenda is the U.S.’s growing concern with China’s military build-up. The Chinese military is scheduled for a 12% increase in military spending this year. At the same time, the European Union is preparing to lift the arms embargo placed on China 16 years ago, in the wake of the crackdown on dissidents at Tiennanmen Square. Rice was quick to caution the EU about lifting the embargo, but the U.S. again is not is a position to dictate to the E.U. Ordering relations between China and the US is the outstanding issue that will remain on the table. between the U.S. and the European Union. China is positioning itself as a global player with tremendous force, both economic and military. Today, its leaders are pragmatic and tough, but who knows what tomorrow will bring. As China’s society modernizes so will the demand for more democratic freedoms, and the potential for political upheaval. Should such an internal showdown come, and the forces for democracy do not prevail, the U.S. may be confronted an even more antagonistic leadership in Beijing.

Putin’s Russia House

It remains to be seen whether post-Communist Russia can truly be regarded as an ally of the US. Despite Bush’s purported cozy relationship with Russian premier Vladimir Putin, the issue of whether democracy will survive in Russia is still up for grabs. The country’s refashioned foreign policy is informed by its attempt to reconfigure to the former Soviet Empire into a more flexible neo-colonialist arrangement.

Russia has consistently moved to tighten its control over its numerous autonomous regions, whose own nationalistic aspirations continue to surface as a significant challenge to the Putin’s regime in Moscow. From Chechnya to Dagastan and particularly throughout the Southern Caucuses, several automous regions are threathening to spin out of Moscow’s control. These areas are flash points of tension, rent with ethnic pressures, successionists strivings and in some instances radical Islamic movements.

Among the newly independent republics that were part of the former Soviet Union, the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have bolted from the Soviet sphere into NATO. Putin has also attempted unsuccessfully to subvert the election process of the former Soviet republics of Ukraine. It was a massive setback for the former KGB Lt. Colonel. The Ukraine was not only the most advanced industial region in the former Soviet Union, it is rich in natural gas and housed a significant portion of the Soviets nuclear arsenal. The Russians spent more than $2 million supporting Victor Yanukovich (a Moscow yes-man) who engaged in massive fraud to steal the first election. Only massive international outrage and the refusal of millions of Ukrainians that took to the streets to protest the outcome forced a second election, in which Victor Yushenko prevailed. The defeat of Yanukovish was not only an embarrassment to Moscow, but under the new President Yushenko, the Ukraine is will seek entry into the World Trade Organization and the European Union.

Georgia and Armenia political assassinations of leading political fugures and internal conflicts that border on civil war underscore the internal struggles in these regions. Armenian rebels have seized a section of Azerbaijan and in the last week of March the people of Kyrgyzstan took to the streets to oust another pro-Russian authoritarian ruler. the United States has been actively monitoring several for Soviet republics and is contending with the Russians particularly in the oil rich Caspian Sea region for influence and access to energy sources.

Within Russia, Putin has unleashed a crackdown on opposition parties, the arrest of Russian business leaders critical of his policies. In short Putin has been engaged in a very determined struggle against the leading illuminaries of the Novo Russki (the new Russian rich) known as The Oligarchs. The group of powerful Russian businessmen made their fortunes by buying critical and strategic business assets for bargain basement prices when Russia began its transition from a state owned enterprises to free enterprise system. At 40 years of age, Russia’s richest man Mikhai Kordorkovsky purchased Yukos oil for 300 million dollars, and quickly converted it into a multi-billion dollar company. But Khodorkovsy’s sin was not making money, it was purchasing newspapers and television outlets to begin to criticize Putin’s policies. He even financed two liberal opposition parties in Russia, that undermined Putin’s legislative muscle in the Duma. It is little wonder then that Putin had Kholorkovsy arrested and jailed, as he has increasingly done with other figures of The Oligarchs.

Seizing back private sector enterprises owned by The Oligarchs and converting them into state owned properties, is more of a strategic question of strengthening Putin’s hand internationally. Putin has been aggressively cutting deals gas and oil deals with Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela and other middle eastern regimes. Russia is piecing together an oil coalition that could be problematic for the U.S. and increase its vulnerability to price fixing. The increased petro-dollars flowing directly into the state coffers as opposed to the private sector, is also giving Putin more money to fend off internal pressures to improve the economy.

While Putin is closing down television stations and opposition newspapers to reverse the trend to democracy in Russia, the United States is turning a deaf ear. The U.S. appears to have adopted a policy that they will challenge Russia attempts to convert the former Soviet republics into vassal states of Moscow, but they will allow Putin free reign in Russia to consolidate his power. Russia’s strategic influence in Europe, the Middle East and Near East is to vital to risk disruption if a new leadership emerges with a different agenda. The challenges confronting the Kremlin are immense and the growing divide between the Novo Russki (the new rich Russian elite) and the broad majority of Russian people is exacerbating tensions in an already fragile nation.

The New Cradle of Democracy

The spread of democracy in the Middle East marks a great movement and overall advance for the cause of global democracy in the long run.However, in the short term, it is just as likely that the democratic movements being unleashed in the Middle Eastern nations of Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and the eventual Palestinian state, may lead to popular election victories for Islamists forces. The pro-theocratic Islanmic factions, which have radical elements, will undoubtedly cloud the outlook for the development of secular democracies. The strength of the Islamists voting bloc compared to the secularists, in the January 2005 Iraqi elections should serve as wake-up call to the U.S. that the outbreak of democracy in the Middle East is likely to produce a dramatically different picture than its intelligence analysts have predicted.

The three most decisive issues confronting the Bush Administration in the Middle East remain 1) Stabilization of a new Iraqi government and working with its allies to stand up a credible internal security force 2) Pressuring the Saudi regime to accelerate its democratization process and 3) Effectively executing its role as a broker to push Israel and the Palestinian Authority towards implementation of the Oslo Accord.

The Gordian Knot in Iraq

Since the January 30 elections the jubilation and momentum created by millions of Iraqi citizens voting in defiance of intimidation and violence by extremist forces, has slowly dissipated as the majority Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunni minority have struggled to form a new government. The inability of newly appointed Prime Minister Ibrahim Talabari to piece together a Council of Ministers to Kurdish President Jalal Talabani’s council for approval, effectively undermined the new governments position and emboldened the subversives to step up their attacks on foreign peacekeeping forces, the new Iraqi national army and American forces.

Even before the elections the U.S. changed its strategy and military mission. The goal was no longer to wipe out the insurgency, but to buttress the effort to stand up a new government, while increasingly relying on the newly trained Iraqi Army to eventually engage and defeat the insurgency. Things haven’t quite worked out that way, and it is becoming clear that the Iraqi conflict is heading into a very decisive juncture.

In parts of Iraq the national security forces are quiting or retreating to defensive postions and refusing to engage the subversives. In critical areas the subversives operate with impunity, and have intimidated citizens from cooperating with the authorities. On April 28, Prime Minister Jaffari announced the recommendations of a new Council of Ministers after the U.S. exerted extreme pressure for the Iraqis to speed up the formation of it governmental structure. However the bickering and lost momentum has eroded confidence in the new government and more announcements were made that by foreign peacekeeping forces that they would be leaving Iraq.

U.S. military forces are going to be stuck in Iraq for some time to come, and even today, U.S. intelligence cannot accurately assess the strength of the insurgency. Unless the Kurds, the Shiites majority and Sunni secularists close ranks and come to a realistic power sharing arrangement, the internal situation will become more balkanized and invite a civil war.

Pragmatic Politics & How to Draw A Roadmap that Falls Short of Oslo

Abide by the roadmap that calls for The current plan calls for removal of 21 settlements unauthorized Jewish settlements in Gaza and only four of 120 in the West Bank. A total of 9000 Israelis would have to relocate. Elections are scheduled for the Palestinian authority on July 17, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad are scheduled to participate for the first time. And are likely to do well. Should they prevail Sharon will be severely tested and face enormous pressure in Israel and from his own Likud Party that has split over the issue of ceding territories back to the Palestinians. but Sharon is intent on going forward with building 3500 new settlements on the West Bank.

While the march of democracy is borne out in certain parts of the world, it must be noted that the Bush Doctrine has yet to formulate a cogent response to the deteriorating situation on much of the African continent. If US foreign policy is to truly reshape the new world order, it must reach into the heart of this oft-neglected part of the world. Despite the many issues endemic to Africa, it is poised to be true opportunity for this new era of American hegemony. The AIDS pandemic threatens to destabilize many African nations, some of whom have made strides toward progressive government and economic reform The on-going civil war and genocidal conditions in nations such as The Sudan, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Liberia, to name a few, call for swift and decisive action by the world’s great powers. As the leader on the global scene, the US has both the opportunity to set a new course which will define the African continent for generations to come, while at the same time demonstrating the true magnanimity of the America spirit to nations and peoples in need.

In sum, while we acknowledge clarity of purpose of the Bush Doctrine, we also note that the implementation of these policy principles to date leaves much to be desired. If the United States is to successfully protect its international interests and cope with this new world order, it is imperative for the US to constructively re-think its relationship with The European Union, NATO, the United Nations and the emerging nations in various regions of the world.

With respect the United States diplomacy, President Bush’s propensity for unilateralist solutions has undermined the United States ability to effectively execute its foreign policy agenda. His February trip to Europe to reconcile the divide between the U.S. and Europe represented an admission that a significant amount of collateral damage existed as a result of the manner in which the U.S. prosecuted the war in Iraq and its efforts to re-constitute Iraq’s post war government Bush’s brazen dismissal of the European Union during the war, followed by his call for their cooperation to address the Iranian and North Korean nuclear arms proliferation issues was poor diplomacy, and if repeated will lead to greater isolation of the U.S. in the future.

Low Country & Chesapeake Society calls on the leaders of the United States to pursue these principles with all deliberate speed.