End of the Evil Empire in sight?

[xpat]

How America Became the World's Dispensable Nation

By Michael Lind
Whitehead Senior Fellow

The Financial Times
January 25, 2005

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.

Consider Asean Plus Three (APT), which unites the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations with China, Japan and South Korea. This group could become the world's largest trade bloc, dwarfing the European Union and North American Free Trade Association. The deepening ties of the APT member states are a big diplomatic defeat for the US, which hoped to use the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to limit the growth of Asian economic regionalism at American expense. In the same way, recent moves by South American countries to bolster an economic community represent a clear rejection of US aims to dominate a western-hemisphere free-trade zone.

Consider, as well, the EU's rapid progress towards military independence. American protests failed to prevent the EU establishing its own military planning agency, independent of the Nato alliance (and thus of Washington). Europe is building up its own rapid reaction force. And, despite US resistance, the EU is developing Galileo, its own satellite network, which will break the monopoly of the US global positioning satellite system.

The participation of China in Europe's Galileo project has alarmed the US military. But China shares an interest with other aspiring space powers in preventing American control of space for military and commercial uses. Even while collaborating with Europe on Galileo, China is partnering with Brazil to launch satellites. And in an unprecedented move, China recently agreed to host Russian forces for joint Russo-Chinese military exercises.

The US is being sidelined even in the area that Mr Bush identified in last week's address as America's mission: the promotion of democracy and human rights. The EU has devoted far more resources to consolidating democracy in post-communist Europe than has the US. By contrast, under Mr Bush the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan. In Iraq, the goal of democratisation was invoked only after the invasion, which was justified earlier by claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was collaborating with al-Qaeda.

-more-

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1872

[Inland]

1. Administration didn't bother to send ANYONE to Davos conference

The NYT quoted Barney Frank--the highest US official to attend this year, probably on his own dime. He said that there was nobody the White House trusted to come to Davos and speak on economic issues.

In the meantime, Chinese officials are in Davos badmouthing the dollar and making ties with Europe and Russia and the multinationals.

Fact is, the US has made itself marginal where economic policies are being decided, made itself radioactive in policitical matters, while the EU and China are making ties to the rest of the world with teh specific intent of making an end run around US power.

Chinese interests just made a deal to develop Cuban oil. Cuba looks for someone that the US won't risk offending to develop its own. China gets an economic base on the opposite side of the globe, one that makes money, while we pour dollars into the Iraqi mess.

[xpat]

3. The only patriotic thing to do

is cheer these developments on. Maybe once humbled, the US will be invited to rejoin the community of nations.

[indigobusiness]

5. Not bloody likely.

But, there's always hope.

[Inland]

6. And that's why I hate Bush.

The bad news is that Bush has weakened the US. And the good news is that the US is too weak to be used by Bush for evil purposes.

I can't believe that I am today saying that a weakened, isolated US is not just a result of Bushian work, but probably best for us and for the world.

Bush took the greatest hope for prosperity and freedom the world had ever seen, the US, and turned into a hideous mockery of its own ideals.

[xpat]

7. It's not only Bush's fault.

It was Democrats who escalated the Vietnam War (Kennedy/Johnson). It has been both Dems and Reps who have repeatedly invaded and subverted Latin American, Middle Eastern and African governments since WWII, not to mention before.

The Evil Empire is a bi-partisan achievement. Democrats are nicer about it, but still committed to it. Remember, Kerry's beef with Bush's Iraq invasion was that he (Kerry) would have done it more competently. That's still empire building, which is at the root of our problems.

To understand the current phase of imperial strategy read Democrat Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard".

[Inland]

8. No, I don't buy that. Bush and the neo cons are different.

Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. The US elite may have been hypocritical, and may not have lived up to its ideals, and may have secretly acted in contradiction of its ideals, but never before has the US reached the point where its leaders just don't care, and don't care if you know they don't care.

Bush sees US ideals as the means by which he can remove just enough resistance to his agenda to ram it through. The pro war people know it is all lies or meaningless, but they cheer it anyway. They know the score--they and Bush knows that if the US people actually knew what was going on, there would be too much opposition.

You know how the US is? The US is the guy who still thinks of himself as slim and young despite having the same access to a mirror as anyone else. It is a self image that Bush panders to: you notice how Fox News is mostly a bunch of compliments to Americans? Most Americans don't care about what the mirror says anymore.

[xpat]

9. You should take a look in that mirror,

then ask yourself what Vietnam was about. What did Roosevelt mean when he said, "Somoza's a bastard, but he's our bastard"? What was Eisenhower talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex?

It's true that the Bush administration has ripped the mask from the brutal exercise of American military and economic power. But that power did not suddenly become a danger to us and the rest of the world on Jan. 20, 2001.

What may likely be the case is that the relatively gentle exercise of our imperial power has become impossible, because of the accelerating unraveling of late capitalism. The world is overwhelmed by a mass on uninvestable capital with no new markets to open. Capitalism has been so successful, that it is on the point destroying itself. Domestically, that means destroying wage earners' living standards to feed ROI. Internationally, that means slash and burn, rape and pillage, with the emphasis on pillage.

[SHRED]

2. Good read...thanks!

Here is the actual link:

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2188

[xpat]

4. Ooops! Thanks. n/t

[xpat]

10. shameless kick n/t