< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: u.s. unilateralism by n0705590 18 February 2002 09:33 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
A Gramscian perspective of hegemony would suggest that american hegemony is declining precisely because the US are increasingly dependant on coercion rather than on consent. >===== Original Message From wwagar@binghamton.edu ===== > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> Damian Popolo PhD candidate Newcastle University Department of Politics Room 301
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |