< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: u.s. unilateralism by wwagar 17 February 2002 07:13 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
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 > > > > > >
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |