Re: u.s. unilateralism

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