Enmeshed on all sides by problems, America is losing global power and influence, and world public opinion is turning into a “second superpower”.
Asking the question about who rules the world, we usually proceed from the standard thesis that the main actors in world Affairs are States, and mainly the great powers. Therefore, we primarily consider their decisions and the relationships between them. This is true. But we also need to keep in mind that this level of abstraction may be misleading, the article says the famous American scientist in The Guardian, a translation of which provided the new York times.
Of course, there was a complex internal structure, and the choices and decisions of their political leadership is very strongly affected by the internal concentration of power when the General population is on the sidelines and deprived of any influence. It happens even in the most democratic societies, but for the rest this situation is an obvious given.
We can’t get a real idea of who rules the world, ignoring the “masters of mankind” as they were called Adam Smith. In his times these were the merchants and Industrialists of England; in our times, is a diversified multinational corporations, huge financial institutions, Empire of retail trade and the like.
But following Smith, it will be useful to consider the “base principle” that guided the “masters of mankind”: “All for ourselves and nothing for others”. In other words, the doctrine of acute and never-ending class war, which is often unilateral in nature, causing harm to the population of the country and the world as a whole.
In the modern world order institutions of the rulers of mankind have enormous power, not only in the international arena, but also within their States. They rely on these institutions in the protection of their government and in the provision of economic support in a variety of ways.
When we think about the role of the masters of mankind, we will refer to such priority of current state policy as the TRANS-Pacific partnership. This is one of the agreements on the rights of the investors, which in the propaganda and the review falsely called “free trade agreement”.
Such agreements are confidential and access to them are only hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists, focusing on the most important details. The goal here is to make them in an expedited manner, Stalinist, excluding the discussion and giving the opportunity to say “Yes” or “no” (which always turns out “Yes”).
The authors of such agreements are very well, which is not surprising. And people? They are not essential. The consequences are easy to predict.
The second superpower
The neo-liberal program of the past generation helped to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few groups, and at the same time, they undermined a functioning democracy. But that also woke up and protested the opposition, most notably in Latin America and in centers of global power.
The European Union (EU), which became one of the most promising projects after the Second world war, was on the verge of destruction because of the significant consequences of the policy of belt-tightening during the recession, which was condemned even economists at the International monetary Fund (but not political forces from the ranks of the Fund).
Democracy in Europe weakened, and the process of decision-making has shifted to Brussels, where he was taken in hand by the officials. But Northern banks throw their long shadow.
The centrist party leading the direction of quickly lose members who move either to the right or left. The Executive Director of the Paris research group EuropaNova explains the universal disappointment “with the angry mood of powerlessness, as a real opportunity to influence the course of events slipped from the hands of national political leaders [who in principle should obey democratic politics] and passed into the hands of the market, EU institutions and corporations” — quite in the spirit of neo-liberal doctrine.
Very similar processes take place in the United States, and for similar reasons. And it is a matter of great significance, not only for the country but for the whole world in the power of American power.
Strengthening of counteraction to the neo-liberal onslaught brings to the fore another crucial aspect of the standard popular wisdom, when extended in the direction of the society, often do not agree with the approved for him the liberal democratic theory the role of the spectator (rather than participant). Such disobedience is always a matter of concern for the ruling class. Following the spirit and letter of American history, George Washington believed commoners “dirty and disgusting people exhibiting inexplicable stupidity in the lower class.”
In his book Violent Politics (Political violence), which became a brilliant review of the rebel movements beginning with the American revolution and ending with modern Iraq and Afghanistan, William Polk (William Polk) concludes that General Washington wanted so bad to push aside the militia, which he despised, this man almost decided to lose the revolution.” In fact, “he could do it, if not for the active intervention of France, which “saved the revolution”. Until that moment it had the upper hand, the guerrillas, which we today call “terrorists”. And the army of Washington, the British sample over and over again lost the battle and almost lost the war”.
A common feature of successful insurgency, says Polk, is that after winning the people’s support is weakening, and the government began to suppress the “dirty and disgusting people”, who actually won the war, his guerrilla tactics and methods of terror. It does it out of fear, fear that commoners will challenge class privilege. Elite contempt for the “lower class” of people over the years takes on different forms.
In our time, one form of such contempt was a call to passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”), which are the liberal internationalists, reacting thus to the dangerous consequences of popular movements of the 1960-ies, which is expressed in democratization.
Sometimes States still prefer to follow public opinion that causes immense anger and outrage in the centers of power. One of the most dramatic cases occurred in 2003, when the Bush administration demanded from Turkey to join the invasion of Iraq.
95% of Turkey’s population opposed such a course of action, and to the amazement and dismay of Washington, the Turkish government supported the point of view of the people. Turkey harshly condemned for such abandonment of responsible action. Deputy Secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz (Paul Wolfowitz), named by the press “the commander of the idealism in the American administration, strongly denounced the Turkish army for committing illegal actions and demanded an apology.
Unflappable and respected commentators, which is not very touched by this and innumerable other manifestations of our legendary “longing for democracy,” continued to praise President George W. Bush for his dedication to “democracy promotion”, and sometimes criticized him for his naivety of thinking and the belief that outside power can impose on others their democratic aspirations.
Turkish society was not lonely. Global opposition to us-British aggression was overwhelming. According to international opinion polls, the level of support to the military plans of Washington are difficult to reach 10% in almost all countries. Such opposition led to strong protests around the world and in the United States. Perhaps, it was the first time in history when Imperial aggression condemned even before its official start.
The journalist Patrick Tyler (Patrick Tyler) wrote in the pages of the New York Times that “there are two superpowers: the United States and world public opinion”.
The unprecedented protests in the US have a manifestation of dissatisfaction with the aggression that began several decades earlier. The participants condemned the American war in Indochina. This protest movement has become a massive and highly influential, albeit too late.
In 1967, when the anti-war movement gained considerable force, a military historian and Vietnam specialist Bernard fall (Bernard Fall) warned that “Vietnam as a cultural and historical education… threatened with complete destruction… as the countryside of this country literally dies under the blows of the most powerful military machine in the world, operating in the area of this size”.
However, the anti-war movement turned into a force that was impossible to ignore. But it could not ignore the actions of Ronald Reagan, who came to power, was determined to launch an attack on Central America. His administration decided to follow the example of John Kennedy, who twenty years earlier had unleashed the war against South Vietnam. But she had to back out due to strong public protests, which were built in the early 1960s.
That attack was scary enough. His victims recovered so far. But what happened in South Vietnam, and later in the whole Indochina, where the “second superpower” was to protest against the conflict much later, was much worse.
It is often said that a strong public opposition against the invasion of Iraq had no effect of its action. I think this statement is incorrect.
Undoubtedly, the invasion was quite terrible, but its consequences are terrible. However, things could be much worse.
Vice President dick Cheney, Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials in the Bush administration even could not think about the measures that went 40 years earlier President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson, as they knew that it would cause protests.
The power of the West under pressure
Of course, there is much to talk about defining public policy the factors that are set aside when we follow the standard view that actors in international Affairs are States. But even with such a non-trivial reservations we can accept this view, at least as a first approximation to reality. In this case, the question of who rules the world, will immediately lead to concerns about the increasing Chinese power and the challenge that Beijing throws the United States and “world order”, about a new cold war, quietly smoldering in Eastern Europe, the global war on terror, American hegemony and the American decline, as well as to other concerns of similar type.
The challenges faced by the power of the West in early 2016, clothed in a common framework leading columnist of the Financial Times international Affairs Gideon Rachman (Gideon Rachman). He began with an overview of the Western pattern of the world order: “Since the end of the cold war, the overwhelming power of the us armed forces is a Central fact in international politics”.
This is of particular importance in three regions: in East Asia, where the U.S. Navy used to treat the Pacific as “an American lake” in Europe, where NATO (read USA, which accounted for as much as three-quarters of NATO military spending) guarantees territorial integrity of its member countries, and the middle East, where the giant naval and air bases of the United States, in order to “reassure friends and intimidate enemies.”
The problem of today’s world order, continued Rahman, is that “in all three regions established order such security challenged”. Russia intervened in Ukraine and in Syria, and China have turned the surrounding sea of American lake in “disputed waters”.
Thus, a fundamental question of international relations is whether the United States needs to recognize that the other major powers in their regions should also be some zones of influence”. Rahman thinks he should, because “dispersion of economic power around the world — combined with simple common sense.”
Of course, the world can be viewed from different angles. But let’s limit it to these three regions, which are undoubtedly very important.
Today’s challenges: East Asia
Let’s start with the “American lake”. May experience some surprise at the appeared in the middle of December 2015, reports that “American bomber b-52, carrying out normal flight over the South China sea, inadvertently flew into the zone on a two-mile China built an artificial island”. The fact is that, according to representatives of the military Department, it caused “acute contradictions between Washington and Beijing.”
Familiar with the grim story of the nuclear age 70 years people are well aware that incidents of this kind often fail to a dangerous world of nuclear war, which threatens total destruction. No need to be a supporter of provocative and aggressive actions of China in the South China sea in order to note that this incident occurred not with the Chinese nuclear bomber in the Caribbean or off the coast of California. China does not claim the creation of a “Chinese lake” in these regions. Fortunately for the entire world.
Chinese leaders understand that their Maritime trade routes are surrounded by hostile powers, let’s say Japan in the Malacca Strait and other places, and that these hostile powers are supported by the irresistible military might of the United States. Accordingly, China has carried out its expansion in a westerly direction very carefully, putting a major investment and implementing thoughtful steps to integrate.
In particular, these actions are carried out in the framework of the Shanghai cooperation organization (SCO) which includes Central Asian countries and Russia, and will soon enter India and Pakistan. Iran in this organization is an observer, and the United States in such status was denied. They also demanded to close all military bases in the region. China is building a modern version of the ancient silk road, intending not just to unite the region under its influence, but also to go to Europe and oil-producing regions of the Middle East. Beijing invests huge money in the creation of an integrated energy and commercial system in Asia, and is building many high-speed Railways and pipelines.
One of the components of this program is the construction of the road, which will be held to the highest mountains in the world built by the Chinese to Pakistan’s Gwadar port. This port will protect oil supplies from a possible US intervention.
China and Pakistan are hoping that this program will also help to accelerate the development of industry in Pakistan and give Islamabad an additional incentive to suppress internal terrorism, which is also creating problems for China in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous region. The United States is providing Pakistan a large-scale military assistance, economic issues was not involved.
Gwadar will become part of China’s “string of pearls” composed of several bases being built in the Indian ocean for commercial purposes, but which may have military applications. Estimates for the future, China will be able after some time to demonstrate its military power even in the Persian Gulf that will be his first case in modern history.
The irresistible military might of the US protected from all of these actions, unless there is a nuclear war until the total destruction, in which case the United States will also be destroyed.
In 2015, China created the Asian infrastructure investment Bank, becoming its main shareholder. In the opening of the Bank, which was held in June in Beijing, was attended by 56 countries, including U.S. allies Australia, Britain and others. They did it against the wishes of Washington. The US and Japan weren’t there.
Some analysts believe that the new Bank can compete with the institutions of Bretton woods (the IMF and the world Bank), in which the United States has the right of veto. There is also the expectation that the SCO will be able to become a counterweight to NATO.
Today’s challenges: Eastern Europe
Contact to the second region, Eastern Europe, where the border between Russia and NATO, in crisis. This is a very important point.
In his instructive and thoughtful scientific study of this region, called Frontline Ukraine Crisis in the Borderlands (Frontline Ukraine: crisis on the border), Richard Sakwa (Richard Sakwa) very convincingly writes that “the Russian-Georgian war in August 2008, in fact, was the first war designed to stop the expansion of NATO.” The Ukrainian crisis of 2014 was the second such war. It is unclear whether will survive humanity third war”.
The West believes that NATO enlargement is beneficial. It is not surprising that Russia, as well as in most parts of the global South in this regard a different opinion, as some influential Western experts. George Kennan (George Kennan) in the beginning, he warned that NATO expansion is “a tragic mistake”, and was joined by high-ranking statesmen of America, wrote an open letter to the White house, which called the promotion of the Alliance “a political mistake of historic dimensions”.
The current crisis originated in 1991, when the cold war ended and Soviet Union collapsed. At that time there were two opposing views on a new security system and on the political economy of Eurasia. According to Sakwa, one concept was for the “enlargement of Europe”, the center of which was supposed to be “the European Union with the adjacent Euro-Atlantic military and political community.
On the other hand, there was the idea of the big continental Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, with many centers, including Brussels, Moscow and Ankara, but with a common purpose — to overcome the differences that have long haunted the continent.”
The main advocate of a greater Europe was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. This concept had European roots in the political movement of supporters of de Gaulle, and other initiatives. But when Russia began to crumble under the pressure of destructive market-oriented reforms of the 1990-ies, this concept has faded. To be reborn it has become along with Russia’s recovery, began to find their place on the international stage under Vladimir Putin, who along with his associate Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for the geopolitical unification of greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok with the aim of creating a genuine “strategic partnership.”
These initiatives were met with “polite disdain”, says Sakwa, because they were considered “nothing more than a cover for a secret rebirth of the “great Russia” and to split in relations between North America and Western Europe. This concern originates in the earlier fears of the cold war about the fact that Europe could become a “third force”, independent from both great and small superpowers, but gradually converging with the latter (this can be seen in the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt and other initiatives).
The West reacted to the collapse of Russian triumphalism. This collapse is welcomed, calling “end of history” and final victory of Western capitalist democracy, as if Russia was instructed to return to the status that she had before the First world war, and again become virtually an economic colony of the West.
NATO enlargement began without delay, in breach verbal assurances to Gorbachev that NATO troops “not an inch” will not be moving East when the Soviet leader agreed to the membership of a United Germany in NATO. It was an astonishing concession in the light of historical events. During the discussion, the parties were talking about East Germany. The possibility of NATO expansion beyond Germany and Gorbachev did not discuss even in private.
Soon, NATO actually came out outside of Germany and came close to the borders of Russia. The main mission of NATO was officially changed, and now the Alliance has received a mandate to protect “critical infrastructure” of the global energy system, sea lanes and pipelines. Thus, the area of operations of NATO have become global. Further, in accordance with the fully revised Western concept of NATO, in its doctrine was proclaimed “responsibility to protect” that contrasts sharply with the official version of the UN. Now NATO can perform the functions of the interventionist forces under the command of the United States.
Of particular concern to Russia are the plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine. About these plans, it was stated at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when Georgia and Ukraine were promised future membership in the Alliance. The wording was clear: “NATO welcomes Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia membership in the Alliance. We have agreed today that these countries will join NATO”.
When the result of the orange revolution of 2004 in Ukraine were won by Pro-Western candidates, there rushed a state Department official Daniel fried (Daniel Fried), who stressed that “the United States supports Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and the Euro-Atlantic community”.
Russia’s concerns can be easily understood. They outlined a specialist in international relations John Mearsheimer (John Mearsheimer) in the leading journal of the American Foreign Affairs establishment. He wrote that “the core cause of the current crisis [in Ukraine] is NATO expansion and Washington’s desire to lead Ukraine from Moscow’s orbit, integrating it with the West.” Putin considered it “a direct threat to the key interests of Russia”.
“Can you blame him?” — Mearsheimer asks, pointing out that “Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but he needs to understand her logic”. It is not very difficult. In the end, as is well known, “the United States can’t accept the fact that the distant great powers deploy their armed forces anywhere in the Western hemisphere, and especially on their borders”.
In fact, the US takes a much tougher stance. They can’t accept the fact that officially called “successful defiance” of the Monroe doctrine from 1823, which declared (not yet implemented) the control of the United States over the Western hemisphere. A small country that dared to show such a successful disobedience, may be subjected to all the “Karam earth”, as well as a powerful embargoes — what happened with Cuba.
We don’t need to ask how would the USA react, join Latin American countries in the Warsaw Pact, and go to Mexico with Canada to consider this possibility. Even the slightest hint of the first step in this direction would be prevented with the “maximum rigidity”, in the terminology of the CIA.
As in the case of China, to understand the logic of motives and actions, Putin is not one of them should be treated positively. It is important to understand this logic instead of to inflict on her the curse. As in the case of China, the stakes here are extremely high. Here literally is a question of survival.
Today’s challenges: the Islamic world
Now let’s turn to the third region, causing serious concern. It is the Islamic world (mostly), as well as the stage of the global war on terror, which in 2001, after the September 11 attacks declared George Bush. Or rather, re-announced.
The global war on terror declared came to power, the Reagan administration. She frantically ranted about “the plague spread vicious opponents of civilization itself” (Reagan’s words) and “return to barbarism in the modern era” (the words of his Secretary of state George Shultz).
The original global war on terror was quietly removed from history. It quickly turned into a violent and destructive terrorist war, which struck Central America, southern Africa and the middle East. Grim consequences of this transformation we are experiencing to this day. Because of this, the United States condemned even by the international court of justice (to which Washington did not listen). In any case, this war was not on the wrong side of history, and so it quietly “went away”.
The success of the Bush-Obama global war on terror can be easily estimated by direct examination. When was declared this war, aims to engage were limited to a small area of tribal Afghanistan. Terrorists are defended by the Afghans, which they mostly disliked and despised, but had to give shelter in the tribal code of hospitality. This puzzled the Americans, when poor peasants refused to hand over Osama to them for the astronomical sum of 25 million dollars”.
There is every reason to believe that in the event of a carefully organized police operation, or even serious diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban suspected of committing crimes of 11 September was quite possible to bring to American justice. But this option was not even considered. Instead, turn on the reflexes, and preference was given to large-scale violence. But not in order to overthrow the Taliban (this came later), and to demonstrate the American contempt for conditional sentences of the Taliban about the possible extradition of Osama bin Laden.
We don’t know how serious were these proposals, because they had never considered. Maybe the U.S. just decided to “show his muscles, to win and to intimidate everyone in the world. They do not care about the suffering of Afghans, and how many people we will lose”.
It is the opinion of a respected field commander and enemy of the Taliban Abdul HAK (Abdul Haq), one of the many opponents of U.S. bombing began in October 2001. He called the bombing “a large obstacle” to attempts of their supporters to overthrow the Taliban from within, believing that such a task was for them.
His view is confirmed by Richard Clarke (Richard A Clarke), who served in the White house under President George Bush as Chairman of the counter-terrorism security Group, when plans for the attack on Afghanistan. Clarke recalled how at one of the meetings when the President was informed that the attack would be a violation of international law, he cried in a small room for meetings: “I don’t care what the international lawyers, we still are gonna kick some ass”.
Against the attack also came out strongly leading aid organization, which worked in Afghanistan. They warned that millions of people are on the verge of starvation, and that the consequences can be devastating.
I need hardly recall what years later turned out to be the consequences for the poor of Afghanistan.
Further, under the sledgehammer of America got Iraq.
The American-British invasion, carried out without any plausible pretext, is the greatest crime of the 21st century. This attack caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a country where civil society was destroyed by American and British sanctions. Introduces their two outstanding diplomat described these sanctions as “genocide” and resigned in protest. The invasion has resulted in millions of refugees, destroyed much of the country and provoked sectarian conflict which today is being torn apart by Iraq and the whole middle East region. This is a terrible fact in our intellectual and moral culture, although informed and enlightened circles called him gently and kindly — “liberation of Iraq”.
Surveys of the Pentagon and the British Ministry of defence revealed that legitimate the actions of the us military in their country recognize only three percent of Iraqis, and less than one percent believe that “coalition” composed of American and British troops has benefited their safety. At the same time, 80% opposed the presence of coalition forces in Iraq, and a majority supported attacks on coalition forces.
Afghanistan destroyed to such an extent that there is conduct credible polls is simply impossible; however, there are indications that there the ratio is about the same. In Iraq the United States suffered a crushing defeat, he relinquished his official military targets and left the country under pressure from the only winner who became Iran.
Its a sledgehammer waving USA and elsewhere, primarily in Libya, in which three traditional Imperial powers (Britain, France and the United States) received a Security Council resolution No. 1973 and then it broke, sending their air force to help the rebels.
In the end, gone is the possibility of a peaceful settlement through negotiations, has sharply increased losses (at least 10 times, as indicated by the political scientist Alan Kuperman (Kuperman Alan), Libya are in ruins, was in the hands of warring factions, and recently became the basis for the “Islamic state”, which uses its territory for the perpetration of terror.
As noted by the Africa de Waal Alex (Alex de Waal), the Imperial triumvirate had ignored a perfectly reasonable diplomatic proposals of the African Union. A huge flow of arms and jihadists flowed on West Africa (who is now the leader of the terrorist murders) and in the Eastern Mediterranean, causing the proliferation of terror and violence. But because of the NATO attacks, the flows of refugees came from Africa to Europe.
This is another triumph of “humanitarian intervention”. As shown by the long and often dark history, there is nothing unusual, since it all began four centuries ago.
