| Beyond Hegemony |
| Friday, December 01, 2006 |
NATIONAL JOURNAL > It is one of the great unmentionables in American politics: the idea that superpower America could ever be something less than No. 1 in the world. Or is it? While listening to a speech by a prominent visitor to his school back in the fall of 2003, historian Paul Kennedy of Yale University recalls just about falling off his chair. The speaker was former President -- emphasis on former -- Bill Clinton.
Invited by the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, Clinton was nearing the end of his talk when he elaborated on what he called a core difference between conservative Republicans and Democrats like himself on how they view America's role in the world. "A lot of respectable opinion," he allowed, backs the conservative idea that America should act like "we're the biggest, most powerful country in the world now. 'We've got the juice; we're going to use it.'"
Then Clinton gave his point of view. "But if you believe that we should be trying to create a world with rules and partnerships and habits of behavior that we would like to live in when we are no longer the only military, economic, and political superpower in the world, then you wouldn't do that. It just depends on what you believe," he said to the applause of his adoring audience. "It depends on what you believe," he repeated.
Kennedy had a particularly good reason to be startled. Long before, in 1987, he had come out with a fat book called "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." His argument was that the United States suffered from "imperial overstretch," the classic malady that in past centuries had afflicted such titans as Spain, France, and Great Britain, and thus faced a relative decline in its global power. Kennedy even broached the possibility that the United States might someday no longer be No. 1. Say what? For his heresy, Kennedy was savaged in certain quarters. And then he was ridiculed: With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Uncle Sam never looked more dominant. Its "unipolar moment," in the phrase of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, seemed destined to be a long one.
These days, Kennedy is looking less like a heretic and more like a prophet. He still teaches at Yale, and I recently caught up with him on the telephone. He suggested that I do a Google search on the phrase "imperial overstretch." The search produced 104,000 entries. The first listing was an article from Jane's, the well-respected British-based analyzer of global security trends. The piece asked, "Can the U.S. afford to send its troops here, there, and everywhere?" That was Kennedy's question 19 years ago.
His point made, Kennedy told me that "managing relative decline" remained the task for America. If anything, he added, today's geopolitical climate is even more hazardous for the United States than was the environment of two decades ago. "There are now more players on the globe who can screw us rather more effectively than we can screw them," the historian said. |
posted by citizen jerk @ 2:57 PM   |
|
| 2 Comments: |
-
The problem is not that there are "more countries that can screw us than there were 20 years ago"; the problem is we are much more capable of screwing ourselves.
-
I agree that most of the problems we face now are a result of problems we created in years past. What we are experiencing now is blowback from our cold war strategy. Many of our (American’s) leaders are holdover from this period that are reluctant to change their strategy and or world view in face of this rapidly changing world.
Simply put the USA is not changing pace to meet this new foe; we believe that we are still the “city on a hill” and it’s this mentality that will ultimately lead to the USA’s downfall. If the USA wants to remain the Hegemon we have to recognize the immediate threat we face and that this foe could potentially dethrone the USA.
According to hegemonic warfare the current hegemon squares off against the rising power and as a result of this conflict and third party emerges as the new superpower. Example: WWI Britain is the superpower, Germany is the rising power, the USA is the third party – the USA realizes its power and gradually makes moves to realize it’s potential. The war often leaves the hedgemon and the rising power greatly diminished so much so that the third party easily slides into a position of strength.
Western Civilization is the dominant culture force on the planet which much of the world scrambling to assimilate western traits and goods (you can even find Nike gear in Iran where they hate the USA). The USA is the vanguard of Western Civilization and it’s very unlikely that Western Culture will be unseated as a result of the upcoming hegemonic conflict, but the West’s ability to influence and dominate global discussions could be greatly effected.
Also do yourself a favor and read up on Fourth Generation Warfare, it’s a fascinating take on what is happening right now, and the funny part is it was written back in 1989.
www.wepinet.com/a4-wekt-fourth-generation-warfare.htm
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
Seed Newsvine
The problem is not that there are "more countries that can screw us than there were 20 years ago"; the problem is we are much more capable of screwing ourselves.