< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: u.s. unilateralism by wwagar 19 February 2002 02:56 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
I see no pattern of increasing dependence on coercion. Since at least the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States has resorted to coercion over and over again. Not always successfully, but repeatedly. I say "at least" because even before 1898, I would argue that coercion and the threat of coercion played a larger part in American expansion than anything remotely resembling consent. The Amerindians did not consent to genocide and the Mexicans did not hand over 40% of their land to the U.S. in 1848 without a fight. The alleged decline of American hegemony is a theory-driven myth and/or wishful thinking. So far. American hubris will eventually catch up with the Republic, I am willing to bet, but as I said before, it will take time. Warren On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, n0705590 wrote: > 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 > > > |