2006-03-16

Bush and U.S. supremacy

The neocons have explicitly laid out strategies for "promoting U.S. supremacy"--an effort that has been applauded and deplored here, depending on political orientation. Aside from such polemics, let's ask ourselves, how's it going? Has Bush been a good steward of empire? Wait, that's too polemical. Let me ask, Has Bush furthered or hindered the national interest? I've always thought that a cagey character like Clinton was a great captain of the US ship--if the desired destination was "empire" or "supremacy" (put it how you like). He knew how to run the world while inspiring its leaders (and many of its citizens) to nod their head, "yes." Bush, however, has most of the world, including US voters, shaking their head, "no."

Here is the perspective of that great pariah Noam Chomsky on the question of Bush as captain of the good ship America. In the days ahead, I'll be finding other perspectives. Below find the first few paragraphs.

he prospect that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence has troubled US planners since the second world war. The concerns have only risen as the "tripolar order"--Europe, North America and Asia--has continued to evolve.
Every day Latin America, too, is becoming more independent. Now Asia and the Americas are strengthening their ties while the reigning superpower, the odd man out, consumes itself in misadventures in the Middle East.
Regional integration in Asia and Latin America is a crucial and increasingly important issue that, from Washington's perspective, betokens a defiant world gone out of control. Energy, of course, remains a defining factor--the object of contention--everywhere.
China, unlike Europe, refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the fear of China by US planners, which presents a dilemma: steps toward confrontation are inhibited by US corporate reliance on China as an export platform and growing market, as well as by China's financial reserves--reported to be approaching Japan's in scale.
In January, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment", the Wall Street Journal reports.
Already much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddharth Varadarjan, the deputy editor of the Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end".
The key is India-China cooperation. In January, an agreement signed in Beijing "cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that could eventually alter fundamental equations in the world's oil and natural gas sector", Varadarjan points out.

11 comments:

Nadir said...

Great observations, Tom.

As other countries in the rest of the world create friends by working together in a spirit of cooperation, the United States creates enemies by being the planet's policeman, its bully or, as is the opinion in some Colorado geography classes, the new Third Reich. Those of us who suggest America shouldn't strongarm other nations have been labeled "isolationist".

I was not a fan of Clinton's brand of empire either, but under his rule America presented the face of the benevolent big brother who was a good buddy, though he might smack you in the back of the head when you weren't looking. On the other hand, Bush is probably the most hated person on the planet, perhaps the most hated since Hitler.

Now the US is perceived as a threat even by its friends. This is mostly the fascist cowboy/pirate Bush's doing ("You're either with us or agin us.")

Though Dubya is the president with whom most Americans would like to have over for a beer (presumably a Bud), most of us would rather have Clinton running the country. Captain Clinton certainly did not have the mutiny on his hands that now confronts the pirates who currently comandeer the vessel. And this is indisputable.

Paul Hue said...

You guys presume that "supremacy" and "empire" are synomyms, but the dictionary disagrees with this presumtion.

I agree that people liked Clinton better and that Bush is hated around the world. And I am not certain that you guys are wrong that Bush's effort in Iraq will lead to prosparity/security/democracy (those words I do believe are effectively synonyms in that a people cannot have one without the others, with one of these terms leading naturally to the other two, and the other two being impossible without the one).

The article convieniently forgets to note that the trade relationship between the US and China not only remove incentives for US hostility, but for Chinese hostility as well. China and the US now benefit from each other's prosperity; indeed, their own prosperity increasingly depends on the other. China's new prosperity naturally flows from the new appearance there of pockets of democracy in the form of free enterprise (freedom to own the products of your efforts and thoughts).

Nadir said...

"And I am not certain that you guys are wrong that Bush's effort in Iraq will lead to prosparity/security/democracy (those words I do believe are effectively synonyms in that a people cannot have one without the others, with one of these terms leading naturally to the other two, and the other two being impossible without the one)."

This is a ridiculous statement. Tyrants like Mubuto, Saddam, the Saudi royal family have all acheived prosperity without democracy. They have instituted totalitarian measures in their respective lands in fact and enriched themselves in the process. Similarly, prisoners are quite "secure" though they do not enjoy prosperity or democracy.

"China's new prosperity naturally flows from the new appearance there of pockets of democracy in the form of free enterprise (freedom to own the products of your efforts and thoughts)."

You are wrong here as well. China's new prosperity has been acheived through the very measured and highly regulated institution of market reforms. These do not have anything to do with democracy (a political concept though you often use it as an economic one) and not the implementation of capitalism.

China's government is still very strict. They only realize certain economic reforms would allow them to increase the prosperity of the people. Those richer people can now afford to pay a greater amount of money to the communist state.

Castro has said he is studying these reforms, and would probably adapt them more quickly if not for the continued political and military threat from the empire to the north. China has no such fears of US military superiority.

Paul Hue said...

====Nadir========
Tyrants like Mubuto, Saddam, the Saudi royal family have all acheived prosperity without democracy.
==================

Nadir: These nations have certainly not achieved prosperity. Even Saudi Arabia is marked by widespread poverty.

Paul Hue said...

==========Nadir==========
prisoners are quite "secure" though they do not enjoy prosperity or democracy
=========================

Prisoners are not secure at all; by definition they lack nearly all univeral freedoms, including freedom to own property and to travel. The term "security" used here is by no means limited to the freedom to live.

Paul Hue said...

========Nadir==========
China's new prosperity has been acheived through the very measured and highly regulated institution of market reforms. These do not have anything to do with democracy (a political concept though you often use it as an economic one) and not the implementation of capitalism.
======================

Nadir: I am one of many people who believe that one cannot have democracy without capitalism, nor socialism without tyrany. People with this veiw believe that capitalisit activity naturally flows from the existance of democracy: owning the results of your own efforts and entering into private contracts with fellow citizens.

The Chinese reforms most certainly involve permitting its citizens to own property (including wages earned in exchange from their labor, and real estate purchased with those wages) and to enter into contracts with each other. These are essential pre-requisites of democracy, though I agree that they do not fall within the definition of "government of the people, either via direct voting or elected representation". Thus I concede some semantic short-comings of my rhetoric. Permit me to restate my case thusly: China has achieved prosperity only by expanding freedoms for its people and adopting aspects of capitalism, with freedom being a requisite for democracy and capitalism being a natural consequence of the activities of free people. China could not have experianced prosperity without permitting freedoms (including capitalist activities) banned by communism.

China for shame has not implimented many other aspects of a free people, which would permit its citizens to own the companies producing most of its consumer products. But it is permitting now its citizens to own restaurants, real estate, and major consumer goods such as cars and washing machines. China's increase in prosperity coincides causally with an increase in the prerequites of democracy and a corresponding neccessary decrease in the restrictions mandated by socialism and communism.

Paul Hue said...

=============Nadir=========
Castro has said he is studying these reforms, and would probably adapt them more quickly if not for the continued political and military threat from the empire to the north.
===========================

Castro faces no millitary threat from the US, but he and "his" people (and they certainly do belong to him!) suffer mightily from being denied access to the US market. I oppose the US boycott on Cuba. We see that opening the US market to China has led to the dual increase there in both democratic prerequisites and prosperity for many of its people. Meanwhile Cuba has stagnated on both of these inexorably linked fronts.

Surely Chinese people will increasingly demand more freedoms as they enjoy the benefits of new freedoms, and these new freedoms neccessarily mean a march towards democracy. With increasing numbers of Chinese able to chose their own washing machines and own their own restaurants and sportswear shops, why not choose their own representatives and laws, and own factories that produce noodles and baseball caps?

Nadir said...

"These nations have certainly not achieved prosperity. Even Saudi Arabia is marked by widespread poverty."

I meant the leaders of those nations, not the people. Same for prisoners who are "secure" in their cells, but by the very definition have no freedoms.

Nadir said...

But let's even look at it another way.

We certainly see the people of Iraq are more prosperous now that they have an elected parliament instead of Saddam Hussein in power. And they don't have to worry about pesky things like electricity or running water...

And I'm sure they feel more secure now that they don't know which to fear more - the US soldiers or their next door neighbor who is of a different religious sect.

This is the result of the "democracy" that you have brought to Iraq. And it is true that they have democracy now, right? They have an elected government. By your estimation the security and prosperity are there as well, right?

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: Iraq is in the middle of a war, just as Germany, Japan, and Georgia once were. The wars in Germany, Japan, and Georgia led to democracy (quickly for Germany and Japan, a hundred years later for Georgia), and that's when the prosperity began. Durring wartime, Germans, Japanese, and Georgians did not prosper. Iraq does not yet have a stable government, which is to say that it does not have a monopoly on the administration of violence. The fruits of democracy cannot be harvested until that happens.

Nadir said...

"Iraq is in the middle of a war"

According to George Bush, the war is over. They have a representative parliament. Why don't they have prosperity and security?

"Iraq does not yet have a stable government, which is to say that it does not have a monopoly on the administration of violence."

What government has a monopoly on the administration of violence? Are you stating that the US government adminstered the violence of 9/11? If so, I might be inclined to agree with your statement, somewhat. But I'm not sure anyone has "a monopoly on the administration of violence". And what people would want a government that did?