Re: u.s. unilateralism

        Richard Hutchinson says exactly what I have been thinking for
several years.  The decline of the U.S. is likely in the long term, but
let's not rush things.  At this point in time, the "next hegemon" remains
entirely unknown, and meanwhile the U.S. has had its own way in Panama, in
Kuwait, in Serbia, in Afghanistan, and remains clearly far ahead of any
other nation in wealth, productivity, military power, and hosting of
multinational corporations.  During its supposed heyday, it did not have
its way in China, Korea, Eastern Europe, or Vietnam, so I cannot see a
downward trend--if anything, I see the reverse.

        According to the nemesis cycle in Greek tragedy, hubris will lead
to folly and folly to self-destruction, but this can take a long time,
especially in the absence of credible successors.  Meanwhile, the more
obvious folly is the wishful thinking of many on the Left who dream of
imminent salvation through the action of minuscule "masses" gathering here
and there in their thousands to oppose the juggernaut of global capital
and the nations (captained by the U.S.) in its hire.

        As Richard says, "good old realism is still a useful guide."
Theory may give us hope for the long term, but for now and perhaps for
many years to come, the facts on the ground are simple and clear.  The
U.S. does pretty much as it pleases, and if it pleases to wreak more havoc
in the Middle East, I don't know who in hell can stop it.

        Warren


On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Is it possible that the U.S. will launch another war against Iraq?
> Who can say no following Iraq 1991, Kosovo and Afghanistan?
>
> Is this necessarily stupid on the part of the U.S.?  No, not just on the
> basis of disagreements and complaints from lesser powers.
>
> The U.S. will try to marshall support, just as in 90-91, and who's to say
> they won't succeed.
>
> With Japan on the economic skids, the EU fragmented, and China still only
> a rising power, the U.S. has plenty of room to maneuver.
>
> The view of the Bush Administration unilateralists is that they can use
> U.S. power to shape the world for U.S. ends with little opposition.  The
> "U.S.-in-decline" analysis prevalent on the WSN list may well be true in
> the long term, but has little bearing on the near to medium term, and in
> fact is seriously misleading.
>
> Good old realism is still a useful guide, and what the Bush Team is
> counting on is that right now its potential competitors need the U.S.
> (mainly as a market and as military protection) more than it needs any one
> of them.  If they can't back up a threat to gang together against the U.S.
> (and noone has even suggested that possibility), then U.S. unilateralism
> can succeed.
>
> None of this should be construed as support for U.S. unilateralism.  I
> just find many of the comments on the list to be "vaguely reminiscent of
> the 1970s."
>
> RH
>
>
>
>
>
>