An interesting article

[Leshy]

This article appeared on the opinion page of my newspaper yesterday. It provides a different look at the idea of the US as the world's undisputed leadership role.

The idea of the preemptive strike is an ettempt to restore American supremacy, but the effects of this forward flight are counter-productive, claims Henk Overbeek.

With his addition to the Opinion page on August 7th, Arend Jan Boekesteijn affirms his rol as the Netherlands most vocal advocate of the new American foreign policy. He refers the international law order and the United Nations to the wastebasket of history, entitles the diplomatical cooperation between France, Germany and Russia as immoral, and is sure that Iraq was filled with weapons of mass destruction until the very day before the attack, as well as in a close relationship with international terrorism (including al-Qaeda). The problems with the evidence for these borderline absurd statements are solved by him with a proved rhetorical trick: everyone knows that it's true, so why does it have to be proved?

Europeans would do best to gather behind the Americans and embrace the strategy of the preemptive strike. After all, the Americans are still the flagbearers of the Pax Americana and the only ones capable of terrorism-response.

No trace in this argument of the realisation that terrorism isn't as much the cause as it is the effect of the habit of large powers to meddle in the internal affairs of others; that the goal of possesion of nuclear weapons by so-called 'Axis of Evil'-states is primarily caused by the fear of an American (preemptive) attack. The whole story rests on the foundation that the US are the world's leading superpower whose (security-)interests coincide with those of the rest of the world.

America however, is currently displaying all the tell-tale signs of a hegemonial power in decline. This seems like a bold statement: the military supremacy of the Americans is unheard of and the quick execution of the war in Iraq has affirmed this once again. But to be a hegemony there is more at stake than unilateral military supremacy.

A hegemony's foremost requirement is that others see the power of the hegemon as a given which they can profit from, and that the moral and ethical leadership of that hegemon is accepted as such by others. This dimension of hegemony is however, in the current situation nowhere to be found.

The United States are increasingly undermining the multi-lateral institutions in which their leadership role was formed since World War II, and they are no longer even capable of convincing countries such as Cameroon and Guinea to vote in favour of an American resolution in the UN Council.

Furthermore, hegemony is always based on economical and financial superiority, and it is here that things get really tight. The American trade shortages will rise to 500 billion dollar. Each single working day, the United States have to attract 2 billion dollar in investments from the rest of the world in order to even out their payment balance. In addition, the federal goverment spends a lot more money than it receives, and she is in debt for almost 4.000 billion dollar. The financing for this huge debt is also mostly dependant on the willingness of foreign countries to invest new capital into the US economy each and every year. What we're dealing with is in essence a huge pyramid scheme.

The continuity of this scheme depends on how eager the rest of the world remains to accept US uncovered cheques (in the form of the well-known greenbacks). Since several years, this is no longer a given. With the introduction of the Euro, there is for the first time since WW2 a real alternative for the dollar.

In 2000, Iraq decided to take payment for the oil it experted for the Oil-for-Food program in euro's. The OPEC last year announced to consider switching to the euro. Elsewhere in the economical world, more and more sounds like those are starting to come up. If that were to happen, the collapse of the American financial house of cards would be near. It would herald the complete demise of the American hegemony, as they could then no longer afford to keep up their military either.

In this light of events, it doesn't seem such a bold statement at all to entitle the current American policy as an act of desperation. The idea of the preemptive strike is a radical attempt to secure and safeguard the American supremacy for the coming decades. The long-term effects of this policy are, however, counter-productive. It would seem a wise course of action for European countries to remain a good deal of independency from the US, before getting dragged into the swamp with it.

Is the US really this dependant on it's trade partners? If investments into the US drastically declined, would the US financial system collapse in on itself?

[roadrunner_0]

yes, the americans have long been in dire straits financially, see if you can find a webby with their actual budget on, it makes for very interesting reading.
also, i really think they could do with dropping their 'defence' spending, as 293.9 BILLION seems to me to be a tad excessive, and i am sure that they could do more productive things with it.


(also, at the end of the 1999 financial year, the total gross federal debt stood at $5,606,087 million, much less than their defence spending)

[AliasX]

I'd love to see one week where someone doesnt post anything about usa =P

[roadrunner_0]

never going to happen though aliasx

[Cochese]

If we didn't meddle in other nation's affairs under the guise of "national security", we wouldn't need to spend 300 billion dollars a year on "defense" (should be "offense" since we aren't defending anything)

Of course, we'd then also need politicians who weren't owned by defense contractors and the like, so these ridiculous budgets wouldn't be approved in the first place.

The paper trail is a long, and dirty one

[roadrunner_0]

indeed, but preemptive strikes are still defence, as you are making sure that they cannot attack you later!

[Cochese]

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
indeed, but preemptive strikes are still defence, as you are making sure that they cannot attack you later!

We hit Iraq 'pre-emptively', and have lost more soldiers "after the war" than before.

They're still quite able to kill us...only now using terrorist-style tactics instead of planes and tanks.

They also have nothing to lose now, which is a dangerous mindset.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Leshy
Is the US really this dependant on it's trade partners? If investments into the US drastically declined, would the US financial system collapse in on itself?

Yes, the US is very dependent on its trading partners.
However, as the article states the US has a huge trade deficit. So its trading partners export a lot more to America than they import from America.
If America goes down we're going with it.

[wu_trax]

once the dolar-exchange rates went down the toilet, us-exports will become cheaper and imports more expensive. the trade-defict-problem will solve itself (on the costs of the eu, obviously).
the dept-problem is another issue, that wont solve itself and will become worse every year. the us will get the same demographical problems europe will have to face in the next years. (although a little later than we will). treatment of old people cost money, unless you want to let them die on the streets. but if the us-goverment now wastes lots of money, so that they will have to pay a large part of their tax-income on interests, they wont have enough later.

(i live in germany, so i now how to **** up a whole country by wasting lots of money for a few years )

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Leshy
Is the US really this dependant on it's trade partners?

Yep, and vice versa. It's a global economy now. Trade is always a two-way street.

If investments into the US drastically declined, would the US financial system collapse in on itself?

I don't know if US financial system would collapse, but the dollar would certainly lose value. But this would be a self-correction--a cheaper dollar would mean the US would export more and import less. There would have to be market realignments worldwide though, and they could be disruptive, to say the least.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I don't know if US financial system would collapse, but the dollar would certainly lose value. But this would be a self-correction--a cheaper dollar would mean the US would export more and import less. There would have to be market realignments worldwide though, and they could be disruptive, to say the least.

after thinking about it again, i dont think it will work out. after the dollar value drops and you cant effort our goods anymore, who are you going to sell your stuff?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
after thinking about it again, i dont think it will work out. after the dollar value drops and you cant effort our goods anymore, who are you going to sell your stuff?

If the value of the dollar drops, our stuff will become cheaper relative to your stuff (for example). So not only will you not be able to sell us (as many) fine German automobiles (because they'll now be too expensive for Americans to afford), but you'll also have to contend with cheaper American cars flooding your markets.

Basically, we'll be able to do to the Germans, Japanese, etc. what they've been doing to us for so long--sell them lots of stuff at low prices and not buy very much in return.

Trust me--it's not as much fun being the top dog as you might think.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
If the value of the dollar drops, our stuff will become cheaper relative to your stuff (for example). So not only will you not be able to sell us (as many) fine German automobiles (because they'll now be too expensive for Americans to afford), but you'll also have to contend with cheaper American cars flooding your markets.

Basically, we'll be able to do to the Germans, Japanese, etc. what they've been doing to us for so long--sell them lots of stuff at low prices and not buy very much in return.

Trust me--it's not as much fun being the top dog as you might think.

the point is: if you stop buying our cars, noone here will buy anything more than the absolute necessary (besides me, obviously, i never could handle money ). meining: we will have deflation and you wont be able to take any advantage out of the better exchange rates. look at the droping value of the pound against the euro, it had close to no effect to uks exports because the euro-zone is in economical stagnation

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the point is: if you stop buying our cars, noone here will buy anything more than the absolute necessary (besides me, obviously, i never could handle money ). meining: we will have deflation and you wont be able to take any advantage out of the better exchange rates. look at the droping value of the pound against the euro, it had close to no effect to uks exports because the euro-zone is in economical stagnation

The current recession won't last forever but in any case, people will still need to buy cars.

Now, when I buy a car I get the best car I can with the features I want for the least amount of money. I don't much care which country it comes from.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
The current recession won't last forever but in any case, people will still need to buy cars.

Now, when I buy a car I get the best car I can with the features I want for the least amount of money. I don't much care which country it comes from.

BUT if your country is in recession, like many in europe are, especially germany, and you are in fear of your job, you wont buy a new car at all.
that means you wont be able to sell them, no matter how cheap they are. there wont be an increase in us-exports because of the exchange-rates, because of the lack of a market. (ever tryed to sell something in japan in the last ten years? didnt work so well, even with a very strong yen)

[Scoot951]

I hate economics. It seems to me we're better off the less we know about it. I mean, a few years ago we were in the best economy evar, and it all collapsed when people realized they were spending money on crap companies.

Ignorance is bliss!

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Scoot951
I hate economics. It seems to me we're better off the less we know about it. I mean, a few years ago we were in the best economy evar, and it all collapsed when people realized they were spending money on crap companies.

Ignorance is bliss!

you have been spending more money than you had. now the market will make that stop. unfortunatly this will happen on a relative short periode of time and that will most likely have a really bad influence on the world economy.

and tactitus: about the exports again: the first one who will take advantage of a loosing dollar will be china. they fixed their exchange rates against the dollar, so they will always be able to match your export prices. and there is absolutly nothing we can do about it, noone would want to have bad relations with china right now. after all its the only market with a lot of growth right now.

[Woof]

Originally posted by roadrunner_0

also, i really think they could do with dropping their 'defence' spending, as 293.9 BILLION seems to me to be a tad excessive, and i am sure that they could do more productive things with it

I'm sure that figure is the only the declared military spending, i would imagine with black budget spending, this figure is way higher.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Scoot951
Ignorance is bliss!

Quit quoting Linkin Park lyrics.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Leshy
With his addition to the Opinion page on August 7th, Arend Jan Boekesteijn affirms his rol as the Netherlands most vocal advocate of the new American foreign policy. He refers the international law order and the United Nations to the wastebasket of history, entitles the diplomatical cooperation between France, Germany and Russia as immoral, and is sure that Iraq was filled with weapons of mass destruction until the very day before the attack, as well as in a close relationship with international terrorism (including al-Qaeda).

Okay, this chap is a looney, heh.

Originally posted by Leshy
No trace in this argument of the realisation that terrorism isn't as much the cause as it is the effect of the habit of large powers to meddle in the internal affairs of others;

I think that's fairly simplistic, really. Terrorism is not something that can simply be explained away through one blanket factor.

Originally posted by Leshy
that the goal of possesion of nuclear weapons by so-called 'Axis of Evil'-states is primarily caused by the fear of an American (preemptive) attack.

Not really true, considering most of these states were pursuing nuclear capability before Bush was even a glint on the political horizon. Nuclear weapons are simply useful detterents, particularly for smaller states in of themselves, whatever the political climate.

Originally posted by Leshy
But to be a hegemony there is more at stake than unilateral military supremacy.

True.

Originally posted by Leshy
A hegemony's foremost requirement is that others see the power of the hegemon as a given which they can profit from, and that the moral and ethical leadership of that hegemon is accepted as such by others. This dimension of hegemony is however, in the current situation nowhere to be found.

Not really true, tbh. The author seems to have a strange idea that some notion of peace and stability and brotherly love is the basis of hegemony.

International hegemony is, and always has been a precarious position. Indeed, I would say that one of the charecteristics of a hegemon or a state seeking hegemony is that your moral leadership is broadly not accepted, and is being challenged.

For example, take a look at France under Louis XIV, or even British hegemony in the 1800's. Even though the British concert idea was succesful, it was eventually cast aside as states returned to backbiting after Napoleon. Then Prussia/Germany arises as a new state seeking hegemony.

Traditionally, when one hegemon or state seking hegemony has been dispatched a new 'agreed' international order has been convened, (Westphalia, Versailles etc.) and then the whole process repeats. the system is not necceasrily based on the enforcement of a particular state, but the mutual agreement of the victorious powers.

I would broadly agree that The US is a hegemon being challenged at the moment, although I wouldn't say it has truely started to deline as of yet.

Originally posted by Leshy
Furthermore, hegemony is always based on economical and financial superiority, and it is here that things get really tight.

True, but currently The US is still massively powerful economically, despite the reports doom-mongering and fantasy.

Originally posted by Leshy
The long-term effects of this policy are, however, counter-productive. It would seem a wise course of action for European countries to remain a good deal of independency from the US, before getting dragged into the swamp with it

Broadly true.

Originally posted by Leshy
Is the US really this dependant on it's trade partners? If investments into the US drastically declined, would the US financial system collapse in on itself?

Yes, and probably yes. But everyone in the global economy is interdependant, and increasingly so; a completely severance of foreign investment is not going to happen.

[SilverSmoke]

I don't want to believe you just translated that for your 'status' on these forums




oh wait , yes I do

[JonnyBGood]

The US won't (and probably couldn't) be destroyed/deterred through the intervention of others. However they're doing a damn fine job crippling their own country right now.

Then Prussia/Germany arises as a new state seeking hegemony.

What you talkin 'bout foo'?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
What you talkin 'bout foo'?

well, we tryed, it didnt exactly work out though.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
well, we tryed, it didnt exactly work out though.

It's not like Germany were the only nationalist expansionist state in Europe during the late 19th century though. (Not to mention the fact that they better than most until the death of bismarck. Nobody blames Garibaldi for uniting Italy.)

[wu_trax]

does anyone blame bismark for anything?
( well, ok, attacking france to unite the country wasnt such a nice thing to do)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
does anyone blame bismark for anything?

I'm not too sure. That's what I was asking MM heh.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'm not too sure. That's what I was asking MM heh.

thinking about it: we can blame him for our social security system (see other thread) but then i dont see that having anything to do with the topic.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
does anyone blame bismark for anything?
( well, ok, attacking france to unite the country wasnt such a nice thing to do)

I blame him for those pointy helmets.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
thinking about it: we can blame him for our social security system (see other thread) but then i dont see that having anything to do with the topic.

I was replying on topic? I just wanted to drag MM off and bog him down in a discussion of 19th century German foreign policies which I could somehow warp into an argument against cultural relativism causing him to lose the plot and tell me to **** off :(

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Not really true, considering most of these states were pursuing nuclear capability before Bush was even a glint on the political horizon.

Still, several countries have recently been pursuing nuclear capability where they did not do so before, or on a lower scale. Iran and especially North-Korea, for example. In a stable political climate, the need for such weapons would be far smaller.

The author seems to have a strange idea that some notion of peace and stability and brotherly love is the basis of hegemony.

I reckon he says that a hegemon should be considered as superior by the rest. If everyone feels that the hegemon is inferior or outright bad, but don't dare to remove him because of his military power, you simply have a dictatorship.

the system is not necceasrily based on the enforcement of a particular state, but the mutual agreement of the victorious powers.

Agreed.

But everyone in the global economy is interdependant, and increasingly so; a completely severance of foreign investment is not going to happen.

Most likely true, although it seems that the US is much more dependant on foreign trade due to it's massive debts than other countries. In such a case, a decrease in foreign trade alone could already be disasterous - it wouldn't take for international trade to halt completely.

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
I don't want to believe you just translated that for your 'status' on these forums

Nothing to do with status, the article just grabbed my attention and I was curious as to what people on GD thought of it. Besides, it's not my fault these people can't read Dutch

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Leshy
Still, several countries have recently been pursuing nuclear capability where they did not do so before, or on a lower scale. Iran and especially North-Korea, for example. In a stable political climate, the need for such weapons would be far smaller.

I'm not sure what you mean by "recent." One of the points of the article you quoted was that the Axis of Evil states were specifically developing nuclear weapons to counter an American pre-emptive attack of the type that George Bush has been saying the US will launch to counter a threat. Yet both Iran's and North Korea's current nuclear programs predate the Bush administration.

So simply looking at the chronology, it appears the author has it all backwards.

Saying that these nations have recently accelerated their weapon's programs is also misleading. These kinds of programs have long lead times. All that's really accelerated is our discoveries of various programs, plants and facilities that were begun years ago.

[wu_trax]

aqs far as i know iran resumed its nuclear program after the whole iraq-incident.
ofc, they started building a nuclear power-plant more than 20 years ago, but that was hardly a threat.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
What you talkin 'bout foo'?

Where dat philosophy?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Leshy
Still, several countries have recently been pursuing nuclear capability where they did not do so before, or on a lower scale. Iran and especially North-Korea, for example.

I thought Iran and North Korea have both long-term WMD ambitions? The vigour or lack of that they pursue them seems irrelevant to me.

Originally posted by Leshy
In a stable political climate, the need for such weapons would be far smaller.

Well, for everybody to feel completely secure you would probably need some sort of one-world system, which isn't going to happene at the moment.

Originally posted by Leshy
I reckon he says that a hegemon should be considered as superior by the rest.

Not actually true, since he said that there is an ethical and moral prerequisite for hegemony, which isn't really true.

Originally posted by Leshy
If everyone feels that the hegemon is inferior or outright bad, but don't dare to remove him because of his military power, you simply have a dictatorship.

That's International Relations for you. It's the law of the playground out there.

Originally posted by Leshy
Most likely true, although it seems that the US is much more dependant on foreign trade due to it's massive debts than other countries. In such a case, a decrease in foreign trade alone could already be disasterous - it wouldn't take for international trade to halt completely.

I think some economic organisation ran a simulation of what would happen if international investment in The US completely halted. It eventually completely destroyed The US economy, but it took most of the world with it.

The point is that the global economy has reached such a level of interdepedance that it would be in nobodies interests to try to undermine in in one 'sector', since it would have global repurcusions.