Contemporary Geopolitics

Interesting comments Boris.  I agree with most of them.  Although I think those 
who believe in oil and Israel are pushing for this war, and that makes it 
easier for it to go forward.  

The US was sort of acting as the 'global west' in the process of the second 
cold war and the democratization of Latin America--or so it at least perceived 
itself.  Over the long term however, the democratic regimes in Eastern Europe 
and Latin America seem more likely to benefit the EU.  Even before the election 
of Lula, you could see an interest among the Latin Americans in strengthening 
ties to Europe.  Europe may well take the mantle of 'western values' (revamped) 
from the US.  The stance of European liberals on human rights, whatever its 
limits, is more coherent than any values emenating from the US.  I should note 
here, however, that I don't see any emergent EU world hegemony, as ChaseDunn 
and Boswell do.  I think the EU is basically too wealthy and removed from the 
problems facing subsaharan Africa, India, et al to effectively lead them.

Ganesh raises the question of the relation of the financial expansion to the 
warmaking of the US.  I don't pretend to understand finance all that well, but 
here's my thought--the US dollar is very strong because the US is central to 
world geopolitics, the maintainer of order.  If it fails in this role, and 
faith in it declines, the dollar will start to tank.  Given the ramshackle 
state of the US polity, this could plausibly lead to substantial domestic 
turmoil. War on Iraq is partly--maybe largely--a way of saying 'we matter, you 
need us.'  It is a dumb way, a self-destructive way, but adjusting to a lower 
profile role could be economically painful for the US, and people often do dumb 
things in the short term to avoid pain.

Steven Sherman