George Soros (Soros Fund Management Founder) – Charlie Rose Interview (2004)

Chapters

Abstract

Updated Article:

The Perils of Power: Soros’ Critique of American Supremacy, Consequences of Interventionism, and the War on Terror

In a comprehensive analysis, George Soros critically examines the ideology and implications of American supremacy, particularly under the Bush administration, drawing parallels with stock market bubbles and their inevitable collapse. Soros argues that America’s pursuit of dominance, much like a stock market bubble, is based on a mix of reality and misconception. He observes that this pursuit, especially evident in the Bush Doctrine’s emphasis on military superiority and preemptive action, has led to dangerous global repercussions. This critique extends to the handling of terrorism, the occupation of Iraq, and the broader implications for international law and cooperation.

Bubble of American Supremacy:

Soros likens the American pursuit of supremacy to a stock market bubble, signifying a dangerous shift in America’s global role, driven by the Bush administration’s actions. This bubble is rooted in a mix of truth and misinterpretation, where the reality of America’s power is overshadowed by the misconception of its unilateral use. Soros draws parallels between America’s supremacy and stock market bubbles, emphasizing the role of feedback mechanisms and the eventual collapse resulting from unsustainable growth and overextension.

Stock Market Bubbles and American Foreign Policy:

Soros’ theory of bubbles – a blend of reality, misconception, and misinterpretation – aptly describes America’s foreign policy. The initial alignment with reality gives way to unsustainable practices, much like the dot-com bubble’s collapse, drawing a parallel with American supremacy’s potential downfall. Soros uses the dot-com bubble as an example, explaining how the initial excitement and overvaluation of internet companies led to a self-reinforcing feedback loop that ultimately ended in a collapse.

Misconception of Dominant Position:

Soros highlights the dangerous misconception that America’s dominance justifies imposing its will globally. This approach, fostering unilateralism and power abuse, directly conflicts with the principles of international law and cooperation. Soros emphasizes that America cannot be the “policeman or godfather of the world” and needs to work together with others to address global issues.

Pillars of the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine, centered on maintaining global military superiority and the right to preemptive action, is critiqued for creating a perilous mix that encourages the imposition of power over law and cooperation, hindering global progress. The two pillars of the Bush Doctrineunquestioned military superiority and the right to preemptive actionform a dangerous combination, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where international relations are based on power rather than law.

International Law and Cooperation:

Soros underscores the necessity of imperfect yet crucial international law for global security and stability. He advocates for the United States to strengthen, not undermine, these laws and engage in dialogue during disagreements. Soros stresses the importance of working together through international institutions like the United Nations to address global challenges, as the U.S. cannot solve them alone.

Addressing Bad Governments and Failed States:

Acknowledging the need to confront tyrannical regimes, Soros stresses the importance of legitimacy and sovereignty in interventions, pointing out the perils of unilateral actions. Soros argues that intervention should be based on the principle of sovereignty of the people, allowing external intervention to protect people from abusive tyrants.

Constructive Approach to Intervention:

The legitimacy of interventions, according to Soros, can be bolstered through the United Nations or a coalition of democracies. He suggests that a diverse coalition could have legitimately intervened in Iraq, unlike the actual scenario. Soros proposes forming a coalition of democracies based on the Warsaw Declaration to promote democratic development and influence the functioning of the United Nations.

Legitimacy in Military Interventions:

Soros proposes a coalition of democracies, based on the Warsaw Declaration, to conduct military interventions, emphasizing the need for legitimacy and reforming the United Nations to enhance its decision-making processes. He believes that military intervention should not solely depend on UN approval and suggests reforming the Security Council to eliminate non-democratic countries’ influence.

Reforming the United Nations:

Highlighting the impracticality of changing the UN charter, Soros suggests pragmatic reforms, such as limiting the decision-making power of non-democratic countries, to improve the organization’s efficacy.

Examples of Legitimate and Illegitimate Interventions:

Soros assesses various U.S. interventions, distinguishing between legitimate actions, like the bombing of Libya after a terrorist incident, and questionable ones, such as the invasions of Panama and Grenada. He considers the U.S. invasion of Panama and Grenada as illegitimate unilateral actions, while the bombing of Libya was justified due to its responsibility for a terrorist incident.

Challenges in the War on Terrorism:

Criticizing the approach to terrorism that often harms civilians, Soros emphasizes the need for targeted, intelligent actions to effectively counter terrorism without alienating allies. Soros critiques the current approach to the war on terrorism, emphasizing the difficulty in targeting terrorists who often lack a clear address and the unintended consequences of military actions resulting in innocent victims.

Human Cost of the War on Terror:

Highlighting the overlooked suffering of non-American victims, Soros questions the justification for interventions like the invasion of Afghanistan and the flawed connection drawn between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

Occupation of Iraq and Its Consequences:

Soros describes the Iraq invasion as a failed liberation attempt, leading to occupation, heightened anti-American sentiment, and a breeding ground for terrorism, ultimately undermining U.S. security. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is deemed counterproductive, failing to win over the Iraqi population and lacking a clear political solution, thereby undermining efforts to establish legitimacy and stability.

Challenges of Democracy-Building:

He argues against the notion that removing oppressive regimes automatically results in democracy, emphasizing the need for organic, people-driven democratic movements.

Role of the United Nations:

Praising the UN’s role in Iraq for weapon inspections, Soros laments the U.S. decision to bypass the UN, deeming it a significant error that weakened international institutions’ credibility. Soros highlights the significant error of the U.S. decision to bypass the UN in the Iraq invasion, weakening the credibility of international institutions.

America’s Response to 9/11:

After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, but the invasion of Iraq was unjustified as there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda or the attacks. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader, while Al-Qaeda is a religious organization. The capture of Saddam Hussein did not make America safer and weakened the US military by bogging it down in Iraq as an occupying force.

Consequences of the Invasion of Iraq:

The invasion of Iraq gave rise to anti-American sentiment and made the US less safe. The Bush administration’s doctrine of projecting overwhelming power was not suitable for occupying forces, weakening the US militarily. The US became less capable of dealing with other threats due to its involvement in Iraq.

Democracy in Iraq:

Richard Perle argued that the removal of Saddam Hussein presented an opportunity to create a democracy in Iraq, despite the difficulties in doing so. George Soros disagreed, emphasizing that democracy must be built by the people themselves and that the US should not impose it.

UN Inspections in Iraq:

After September 11th, the UN passed a strong resolution to address weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were effectively verifying Iraq’s compliance with the resolution. Soros believed that given more time, the UN inspections would have achieved their objectives without the need for military intervention.

Saddam Hussein’s Regime:

George Soros argues that Saddam Hussein could not have used his weapons, even if he had them, and that given time, the Iraqi people would have eventually overthrown him. Soros claims that Saddam’s power was based on fear and intimidation, not on the possession of nuclear weapons. Soros believes that Richard Perle, a staunch advocate of preemptive action, wants to impose fear on the rest of the world.

Dealing with Terrorism:

Soros acknowledges the need to address terrorism but emphasizes the importance of locating and understanding terrorists through investigation and police work, rather than relying solely on military force. He stresses the need to gain the sympathy of people in order to obtain information and prevent terrorist attacks.

The Situation in Iraq:

Soros argues that the U.S. occupation of Iraq did not engender goodwill among the Iraqi people, particularly the Shiites, due to a lack of confidence and previous abandonment by the U.S. He believes that establishing a political solution, holding elections, and gaining legitimacy through the United Nations are essential for a successful transition in Iraq. Soros highlights the need to address the widespread anti-Americanism caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

The Bush Doctrine and the Upcoming Elections:

Soros views the upcoming elections as a referendum on the Bush Doctrine, which he believes is characterized by preemptive action, nation-building, and widespread distrust. He argues that re-electing Bush would endorse the Bush Doctrine and its consequences, while rejecting it would allow America to move on from this temporary aberration.

America’s Role in the World:

Soros emphasizes the importance of America’s values, such as an open society, and its rightful place as a powerful but peace-loving nation. He believes that rejecting the Bush Doctrine would allow America to reclaim its position in the world.



Soros concludes that the Iraq invasion was strategically flawed, undermining U.S. military capacity, fostering anti-Americanism, and obstructing democracy promotion. He advocates for respecting national sovereignty and nurturing indigenous democratic movements. Soros argues that the invasion of Iraq was strategically flawed, undermining U.S. military capacity, fostering anti-Americanism, and hindering the promotion of democracy. He emphasizes the importance of respecting national sovereignty and supporting organic, people-driven democratic movements.

Notes by: QuantumQuest