< < <
Date Index > > > |
Power and power by Threehegemons 17 February 2002 14:20 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Richard--you help clarify some of the issues in play right now. Whether or not it is a good thing to have friends is, apparently, now an open question in the US. Certainly the State Department believes its a good thing--that's why they produce reports about what the foreign press thinks, like the one Wallerstein uses in his current commentary. But Bush--and apparently much public opinion--doesn't seem to think it matters much. With such an attitude, and given the particularities of the case, I don't see much prospect of having the sort of backing the US had when it attacked Yugoslavia, let alone Iraq I. I remain agnostic about whether the US could carry out its military objectives anyway--I am not a military strategist. However, in terms of the stated goal of preventing 'rogue states' from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, I'm pretty pessimistic about the US' abilities. There was an interesting line, which no one commented on here, in a piece by Alexander Haig that was posted a couple of months ago. He commented that the US maintains troops in Europe to guarantee that the Europeans don't become protectionist. This line seems to capture the limits of power exercised through military force in all its poignancy. If Europe should choose to go protectionist, could the US forces there somehow conquer the continent, and assure its continued integration with the US? Its precisely such goals that require friends, and for which military power is practically useless. More broadly, the US has an additional goal--along with its military ones--of organizing a 'free trade' global economy. How does it plan to do this without friends? The US doesn't just rely on its allies for markets--it also relies on them to pay for its wars--which could be a problem if you decide there is no need to make friends. Let's not forget the conference to organize a new government in Afghanistan was held in Bonn, and wasn't the one to fund reconstruction of Afghanistan held in Japan? A few months ago--for example, when Geoffrey Wheatcroft suggested in the NYTimes that Europe get involved in the Middle East--I would have agreed with the characterization of Europe as fragmented. But Bush seems to have actually succeeded in unifying European opinion, and Chris Patten's comments last week pretty much amounted to European foreign policy positions. Over the medium term (10 to 20 years), Europeans, if they are not friends with the US, are going to start exploring their options. They don't presently have military power (that could change) but they send plenty of aid to the rest of the world, and are the headquarters for the bulk of the NGO world. These are forms of power, and they will try to figure out how to deploy them. Ditto East Asia. Meanwhile, the US may well take more direct hits on its 'homeland', which certainly looks like a reduction in its abilities to defend itself (another way of thinking about power). Power can be conceived of as the ability to do whatever you want to, or the ability to get others to do what you want to. Which forms of power is the US strongest in with the direction Bush is pushing for? And can you really continue with the first form as the second form eludes you? Steven Sherman
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |