8/03/96, SS <ba05105@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>quoting me:
>> What's this about "renewed" US hegemony? The U.S has global
>> hegemony, has had it since 1945, and has it more totally now than ever
>> before.
>If you have any evidence that the US has hegemony over China, please send
>it to me.. Could it be the way China so thoroughly complied with US
>demands that it live by our copyright rules? Or the way Chinese rulers
>pay so much attention to US complaints about who they sell weapons to?
>Yup, US nuclear power really has the Chinese quaking in their boots.
China is indeed a singular case. I take it as obvious that the
U.S. has the military _capability_ to destroy China: in a matter of hours
the U.S. _could_ reduce China to rubble, destroying its military capacity,
economic infrastructure, and who knows how many cities.
But I take your point that my use of the word "hegemony" may have
been questionable. I _thought_ hegemony meant "having predominant military
power", whereas my dictionary says:
"hegemony: The predominant influence of one nation over others"
What you seem to be saying, then, is that since the Chinese don't
cower under the potential U.S. threat, that actual hegemony isn't
operative. As long as they believe U.S. power is a "paper tiger", then
hegemony is only potential, not real.
In this regard, I think the case of Iraq and the Desert Storm are
relevant. Saddham thumbed his nose at U.S. power (military, diplomatic,
and economic), much as you're saying the Chinese do, right up until Iraq
got clobbered. The reality of U.S. hegemony over Iraq was proven to the
world by force, even if Saddham continues to live in a fantasy world.
In light of these considerations, I'd refine my claim as follows:
The U.S. has the military power to assert hegemony wherever it chooses, but
this potential hegemony is exercised/implemented to different degrees in
different parts of the world, depending partly on diplomatic/public-opinion
considerations. When a country's behavior crosses some unspecified line,
in terms of acceptability to the U.S., then the reality of the hegemony
comes under test. The U.S. has diplomatic, propagandistic, and economic
leverage which it can bring to bear in this regard.
An new test of U.S. hegemony is now coming to the fore in the cases
of Iran and Libya. We have the new U.S. law attempting to influence
affairs there by penalizing European corporate investments. We also have
the announcement that the U.S. in considering a unilateral nuclear strike
against an alleged Libyan chemical weapons facility.
Given the earlier precedent of a unilateral U.S. air strike against
Libya, carried out with impunity, it seems evident that the U.S. is now
flexing its muscles in preparation for additional "hegemony implementation"
in the region. In particular, there is an apparent desire to create an
historic precedent: to break the "no nukes" taboo, thereby bringing the
U.S. nuclear arsenal into the "kit bag" of credible enforcement tools.
In the case of China, I believe the test of hegemony would come if
and when China tries to take some international action that the U.S. finds
unacceptable (not just objectionable), or if and when China's own nuclear
capability threatens to become a credible deterrent to U.S. military
action.
In the recent confrontation between Taiwan and China, the U.S.
demonstrated its willingness to "show the flag" in the region. I assume a
large number of U.S. missles, especially on submarines, were programmed for
Chinese targets during that crisis, and that the Chinese leaders had to act
with such an assumption in mind.
--->I'd >also love to know why the US is organizing South Central Asia the way it >is. I didn't know that endless civil wars and religious fundamentalism >were ideals of US elites, but I may be mistaken....
"Destabilization" has been frequently a recognized goal of covert U.S. foreign policy. It is a way to break down the existing political/economic structures of a country or region, so that they can then be reconstructed in a way more favorable to elite interests. The whole destabilization of the former U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe is a case in point.
In the case of the Mideast, we have a "perpetual destablization" scenario. With an over-armed Israel funded by the U.S., the covert funding of splinter terrorist groups, the encouragement and support of dinosaur regimes in the region, and other measures, the U.S. keeps the region in turmoil, and permits the oil-producing nations to be played off against one another. This is one way of exercising hegemony.
>again, quoting me: >> To use a metaphor from American mythology, you might say capitalism >> graduated from a Wild West stage of existence, and that the time had come >> to urbanize the Western Frontier -- banks and marshalls instead of >> shoot-em-up anarchy...
>Mostly true, but the economic world we are headed for is one where the US >is only one of many players, and it soon will not be the biggest player, >either.
In the globalist economic world that's being created, it's not nations that are the real players -- instead it's multinational corporations. The U.S. economy can go up or down -- as can that of Japan, Germany, the UK, etc. -- and multinationals continue to rake in profits, regardless of where they're based.
U.S. power and influence is no longer focused on promoting U.S. national interests and welfare, but instead is focused on supporting a global climate conducive to _general_ multinational interests. In effect, U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic power has been "captured" by the global capitalist elite, and harnessed (at U.S. taxpayer expense) to its ends.
Yours, Richard
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - Wexford, Ireland Cyberlib: www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~