Re: Fw: negating non-intervention

1/2/2001, Michael Pugliese forwarded from John Gulick:
    > What do folks make of the following ill-formed diagnosis ?
    Colin, Rumsfield, Condi and Co. are urging that US withdraw
    troops from Balkans in order to reallocate military
    resources to Latin America...
      > This emergent shift in geographical orientation of US
    imperialism reflects not only Kissingerian (instead of
    corporate liberal) approach of Republican foreign policy
    establishment but also the likely increae in
    inter-imperialist tension when US' economy tanks..
      > The notion that there is now a coherent and self-conscious
    global capitalist class will be tested and pressures for
    protectionist bloc formation will increase...
      > for US capital as is the PRC, etc. Aggressive embrace of
    national missile defense as a big "fuck you" to the ABM
    treaty and its exponents among the elites of Asia and the
    EC, etc...


Dear Michael,

You have pointed out two important events:
    (1) pullout of U.S. troops from Balkans
    (2) US missile-defense project
    
I agree that these events require an explanation - that they
challenge our models.

You have presented one diagnosis, and I think 'ill-formed'
is unecessariy modest.  It makes good sense.

I subscribe to a different diagnosis, which I'd like to
offer for your consideration.

In yesterday's postings, I brought up the topic of Germany,
and suggested that we are moving to a bi-polar geopolitical
regime.  There is much evidence for this, and I mentioned
there the debt-swap with Russia, and the consolidation of
German control over the EU.  The U.S. pullout from the
Balkans offers additional evidence, since a US pullout
effectively turns the Balkans over to Germany.

The central question then becomes: Is this a move toward
protectionist blocks, or is it rather a friendly
collaboration between the US and Germany, sharing the burden
of defending the global regime.

I fail to see any evidence of a move toward protectionism,
nor do I see any reason to expect that.  The commitment to
neoliberalism remains unwavering, in both the US and
Germany.  There hasn't been the slightest hint of any crack
in that resolve.  In fact, the neoliberal project continues
on course, with for example the expansion of NAFTA to the
entire continent, and the utilization of non-WTO channels.

The fact that the US economy may falter, I suggest, is of
little concern to global capital, or to the US
establishment.  Neoliberalism has already seriously damaged
Western economies - and that has benefitted the global
regime.

As for 'Asian elites', I suggest that they have never been
part of the core elite.  When the global economy was
expanding, then 'Trilateralism' was in vogue, and it helped
draw Japan into the neoliberal program.  As markets have
become glutted (ie, push comes to shove) the regime is
moving to assure the survival of Western-based TNCs.  I
won't argue that the regime caused the Southeast Asian
collapse, because I'd be accused of conspiracy theorizing.
The evidence to look at are the specific actions the IMF took to
'solve' that crisis.  Instead of working to put S Korea (for
example) back on its feet, the IMF forced the bankruptcy of
S Korean industries and presided over the bargain sale of
assets to Western investors.
 
regards,
rkm