Skidelsky and the Condominium of the Rich

        Robert Skidelsky's idea of "a new multilateralism," by which he
means the assumption of responsibility by all the world's "great powers"
to maintain peace and promote justice throughout the globe, is offered as
a counterweight to the growing threat of American imperialism.  Skidelsky
does not believe that the bid of the United States to run the world as it
pleases can ever be successful.  But if America's ambitions are not
checked by its sister great powers, they will lead to the destabilization
of the world order and the eventual collapse of the American empire itself
through a process of "overstretch."

        So it becomes the historic task of the European Union, Russia, and
China to use all the resources at their disposal to bring the United
States back into the "international fold," sharing in the oversight of
weaker nations, stemming conflict, and preventing humanitarian disasters.
Skidelsky speaks of "an agreed distribution of responsibilities," and
furnishes a few examples of what might be done.  Europe could join the
U.S. "as an effective partner in the search for peace in the middle east."
China could help the U.S. disarm North Korea.  Pan-European forces could
replace those of the U.S. on the European continent and also prevent "the
slide of parts of Africa into barbarism."

        Some 15 years ago, in "A Short History of the Future," I imagined
an almost identical future for the first 40-odd years of the 21st Century.
Subsequent editions, the latest published in 1999, have retained this
vision.  I called it "the partition of the world into zones of special
influence."  The great powers--the United States, the European Union,
Russia, and an alliance of Japan and China--agreed at a conference held in
Vienna to carve up the planet.  In the 1999 scenario, the United States
received a more or less free hand in Latin America, the Pacific islands,
and the lower Middle East.  Japan and China took charge of South and
Southeast Asia.  Russia was entrusted with Central Asia and the upper
Middle East.  The European Union had the care of Africa.

        In another context, I have referred to this scheme as "the
condominium of the rich."  The major capitalist powers manage the world.
Attempts by breakaway states and movements to challenge the world-system
are crushed.  Stability returns, America settles for a partnership role
that helps protect its economy, and the world is at "peace," a peace that
in my fictional scenario lasted until 2044.

        But Skidelsky speaks not just of "maintaining peace" but also of
"promoting justice."  Can he be serious?  In whose interest would the
condominium of great powers manage their world?  In the interest of
imperilled weak peoples, the autonomy and welfare and dignity of weak
peripheral peoples, or in the interest of megacorporate elites and other
ruling circles in their own overdeveloped countries?  Since when has it
been the business of big business to promote worldwide justice?  Did the
United States invent the imperialism and capitalism peculiar to the modern
world-system?  Consider the longue duree, the several cycles of hegemony,
the several quests for world-empire.  What could Samir Amin tell us, if he
were to join in this dialogue?  The mad professors in Washington
currently, and rightly, command our horrified gaze, but let us not forget
the last 500 years.

        Further.  Who are these great powers worthy of sharing the world?
Three of the four have a Christian heritage, greatly attenuated by
secularization, but still powerfully influenced by Rome and Byzantium, not
to mention Wittenberg and Geneva.  The fourth has a Confucian and Buddhist
heritage, even more greatly attenuated by secularization.  All four are
hell-bent on "modernization" (the process, not the allegedly obsolete
theory), which means higher and higher tech, mass production, and
finishing off the world's fossil fuels, forests, and whales.  These are
the powers, and the cultures, that know how to manage the worlds of Islam,
Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Latin and Caribbean America, and animism?
These are the role models for the weak and the impoverished?

        I do not doubt that Skidelsky's new world order might be a great
deal more "stable" than a world under ceaseless attack from American
bombers and helicopters.  It might also last a lot longer, exploit working
people everywhere more remorselessly, and endanger indigenous cultures
more efficiently than any Pax Americana.  Be careful what you wish for.
Under the claws and jaws of a rogue male lion, you might prefer a
different fate, but I doubt that an assault by an entire pride would
improve your chances of survival.

        Warren