Re: u.s. unilateralism

        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
>
>
>