| |
THE AMERICAN
EMPIRE
Part 3: The fear
within
Part 1: Reluctant hegemon
Part 2: Righteous king
By
Francesco Sisci
 BEIJING - The Gulf War of 1992, by which time
the Soviets were no longer a danger, should have brought
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to an
end. But the fact that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
miraculously managed to survive despite his military
defeat dragged out for years a situation in which OPEC,
while not as powerful as in its heyday, was still
controlling the throttle of oil prices.
Against
this backdrop cynical observers could read al-Qaeda's
terrorism as an effort by certain Saudis to regain full
control of their land (and their oil, which had been
under loose US tutelage since the Gulf War) by trying to
kindle the implosion of the United States through
terrorist actions.
The implosion or fall of the
US would have been bad news not only for Europe, but for
the rest of the world. A cowering, wounded United States
would have precipitated a global economic downturn,
dragging down all emerging markets, China's included,
and would have created a huge vacuum of power that no
one could fill. This in turn could have brought about
chaos for developed and developing nations, with the
only benefit going to the ultimate producers of energy
and fundamentalist faiths such as Wahhabi Islam.
Incidentally, both happen to reside in the same place -
Saudi Arabia.
It is thus important while
cracking down on actual or future terrorism to regain
control of oil at the same time, in order to keep energy
at a reasonable price for all those who want to carry on
with economic development. In this case the interests of
India, Japan, the United States, Europe, Southeast Asia,
South Korea, China, the developing countries and to a
degree Russia are consistent: all want low oil prices to
finance their growth. The control of oil resources,
then, can be at an optimal crossroads of idealism (the
fight against terrorism) and imperial motivation (a
check on the price of energy). This could be the card
for the establishment of a new world order in which the
United States after years of wobbling in a vacuum
without big fights against big faiths (fascism,
communism, fundamentalist Islam) could spin off a new
perspective of rapid economic development for everybody.
The idea is that if you strive for development
you will be rewarded, while if you squander your
inheritance or resources you'll suffer. Many OPEC
countries appear to be in the latter category. Many of
them have used oil riches to let Bedouins live into
their old age with modern comforts. They often did not
invest in modern industry, they did not use their
God-sent resources to build modern states that could
survive with or without oil. They look like those people
of the old European rentier aristocracy who complained
about their dwindling income but did nothing to
replenish it, while the new aggressive bourgeoisie was
working hard on building its fortunes.
The war
against Iraq, then, could be an opportunity for new
economic development. This could be the base for the new
American wangquan zhuyi, true rulership. The
American Empire could then try to reconcile with itself.
The United States is the strongest, everybody knows it,
and no nation in its right mind can challenge it. Not
only that, but in the present shaky world balance, the
US has to be this way for decades before new balances
can emerge. A political vacuum without the United States
would now be dangerous for developed and developing
countries alike.
But the fear is, can a country
with such overwhelming military power restrain itself?
Might not a mad general seize power and launch a nuclear
holocaust? Might not a president go mad and
singlehandedly drive the world to the end? The US for
the first time in the history of the planet can in fact
do just that, and the world could not assemble a
coalition capable of resisting it - its military
capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, are
arguably superior to those of all other countries put
together.
The world therefore must ultimately
rely on American goodwill that Washington won't go nuts.
Objectively, this is a condition of hegemonism: to
change it into true rulership the US must make an extra
effort to soothe friends and foes. This will reinforce
its rule and extend it into the future. This was
ultimately the trick played by Chinese imperial
dynasties, which tried to affirm their right to rule the
world (tianxia, all that is under heaven).
Cynically, one could say that they launched a soft war
on their subjects and enemies alike to buttress their
rule. Although they also used force, this, at least
ideally, came many steps after the use of peaceful
persuasion.
The United States currently wields
immense cultural muscle by its domination of the movie,
television, music and software industries, the so-called
soft power, yet the administration of President George W
Bush doesn't convincingly explain (or think through) its
political moves, to win the political war before
the military war. The rift with Europe is due to this
deficiency in the political war. Hegelians and
Confucians alike would tell the Bush administration it
needs to keep the upper ideological hand; without this,
all the soft power could crumble and all the world would
be in danger.
In China, for instance, allegedly
home of many opponents of US hegemonism, pundits are
against the unilateral use of US force, and see it as a
danger for the US and the world order. They could be
appeased by better-founded, better-argued rulership,
because China can't hope to replace the United States
for many decades, and an old known master is better than
a new unknown master or total confusion.
If this
is the case in China, arguably it is so in every corner
of the world. Therefore the US has nothing to be afraid
of but itself ... and this, both for the United States
and the rest of the world, might be the real concern.
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
