The Next World Order

adnans

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020401fa_FACT1

fascinating article suggesting the guiding principles of american foredign policy, which is the prevention of the rise of any other great power which could rival the US.

random quotes:

Richard Haass - Director of Policy Planning for the State Department:

He stopped for a moment. "Is there a successor idea to containment? I think there is," he said. "It is the idea of integration. The goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to persuade the other major powers to sign on to certain key ideas as to how the world should operate: opposition to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, support for free trade, democracy, markets. Integration is about locking them into these policies and then building institutions that lock them in even more."

kenneth pollack, a former CIA analyst who was the national security council's staff expert on iraq during the last years of the clinton administration:

You need to take western Iraq and southern Iraq"—pointing again—"because otherwise they'll fire Scuds at Israel and at the Saudi oil fields. You probably want to prevent Iraq from blowing up its own oil fields, so troops have to occupy them. And you need troops to defend the Kurds in northern Iraq." Point, point. "You go in as hard as you can, as fast as you can." He slapped his hand on the top of his desk. "You get the enemy to divide his forces, by threatening him in two places at once." His hand hit the desk again, hard. "Then you crush him." Smack.

about middle east:

So it's really the entire region that is in play, in much the way that Europe was immediately after the Second World War.

action plan:

United States should assemble "coalitions of the willing" to support its actions, rather than feel it has to work within the existing infrastructure of international treaties and organizations.

nothing very broad yet seeping through, no long term plans and any short term ones mentioned revolve around iraq. still though, its very interesting to read the article. Discuss?*

adnans

* = please be sensible when posting and respect other people's opinions or no biscuits for you.

DadaKopf

Yeah, they call it full spectrum dominance.

The whole notion of 'locking in' other peoples and countries into US-dominated markets has been a dominant feature of US foreign policy since the 1910's but especially post-WWII. It's certainly nothing new and people certainly haven't only cottoned on to it now; the German Critical Theorists and French types like Lefebvre and the Situationists noticed all this in the 1920's. They've stayed in power by drip feeding us commodities just to sate us, just like Huxley's soma. We're kept in control through the market - America invented this and it was intended as a tool of 'liberation' but really it's a closeted tool of power and dominance, preventing any real, necessary change for the better. This really shouldn't be a surprise to us but (as we all know) the media has a great knack for concealing the truths we most desperately need.

The irony is: the more powerful America's become (since WWII), the more under threat it's become.

However, US foreign policy, as much as I hate it, provided the much needed stand against Soviet totalitarian dictatorships spreading across the world. With this I haven't a problem. What I have a problem with is this full spectrum dominance they so readily espouse. America's arrogant unilateralism is the scourge which perpetuates many of the ills of the world, from economic to environmental. They pose as tolerant liberals but they can't even eradicate racism in their own country, let alone treat other distinct cultures with the respect they deserve.

America rightly opposed Soviet totalitarianism but when Communism fell, and the thread of nuclear war evaporated, the US did not relinquish its economic, political and military hold on the world - in fact, it strengthened it. More than anything else, this has shown the iron will of the elites in Washington to dominate every sphere of life in the world, to keep America powerful, and every other country in a position of diplomatic subservience.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
America rightly opposed Soviet totalitarianism but when Communism fell, and the thread of nuclear war evaporated, the US did not relinquish its economic, political and military hold on the world - in fact, it strengthened it. More than anything else, this has shown the iron will of the elites in Washington to dominate every sphere of life in the world, to keep America powerful, and every other country in a position of diplomatic subservience.

This ties in to something which has been dawning on me over the past while - mostly through the various US-involving threads we've seen here over the past while.

Every time someone criticises the US, it is almost inevitable that they get a come-back along the lines of "we protect you", or "its so easy for you, sitting under the umbrella of NATO protection...." (meaning US, not NATO usually), and so on.

Ultimately, what this is saying is "America saved you from Soviet and communist dominance, so now you should do what they tell you to".

No. I dont want a foreign dictator, thank you all the same. I am glad that the Soviet expansion never extended into western Europe, but I do not accept that the cost should be that we are now subservient to a different foreign nation.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the best thing for the world would be to have a single unified power, controlling pretty much everything from an "overlord" position (except for boards - deVore should be left as our overfiend).

Somehow, though, I doubt it. America has a lot going for it, but at the end of the day, it is looking out for America. Locking us into their policies will only benefit us while it benefits them more. Maybe I'm wrong on that - I'm open to other options here.

Which leads me to the really difficult question, which some regular posters will get highly, highly upset for me asking. Is the US becoming the new world threat?

I'm not talking about communism, but America cannot give the entire world the same standard of living and level of consumption as they have - the planet will simply not support it. So - are they ultimately looking to have a two-tier world of America vs Everyone Else?

Ultimately, I dont think so - a united second-class world would have the ability to shrug off the US, economically or militarily, if it ever really decided it wanted to.

So therefore, we must ask ourselves....does America really want global peace - with everyone tied into their policies? I dont think so. I think inter-nation friction is good for the US. At the moment, we can see the conflict in the ME helping the US to promote its policies - for right or wrong.

I think instability is what is allowing America to promote this full spectrum dominance, and should the instability ever go away, it would cause problems.

This raises the awkward question of what is the US really trying to do with full spectrum dominance?

I cannot see how it is a viable long-term strategy. Mid-term, absolutely, but ultimately, like any form of growth on a planet of limited resources, it is unsustainable.

jc

Clintons Cat

one only has to look to the double standards america employs with regards its multi nationals and foriegn trade to question the benifits of full spectrum dominence to the rest of us.
On one side the US ruthlessly promotes free trade whilst on the other protects its domestic markets from competition(in mexico local maize farmers have seen the price they receive for their goods slashed by two thirds and their domestic markets flooded by cheap mass produced US government subsidised maize).
Steel tarifs are just the tip of the iceberg, WTO rules means third world countries are obliged to privatise their utillities and allow foriegn ownership of revenue generating industries,meaning a countries natural resources are literally drained away.

i will play some links down later in the week

mike65

The business of America is business as the saying goes and was vividly demonstrated in part two of The Century of the Self on BBC2 last Sunday, as it showed how the CIA toppled a legitimate and democratic goverment in central America to help a US company keep its grip on that countrys' banana trade.

There will be no stopping them until we're all buying Coca Cola(R) and munching french fries while sitting in front of Pearl Harbour 3
whilst wearing Nikes(R) and a baseball cap backward and listening to Linkin Park.

Oh, er...thats already happening is'nt it?

Mike.