THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

By Augusto Zamora and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

MADRID, Jan 1 2004 (IPS) - Few seem willing to question what seems unobjectionable, namely that the US, victor of the Cold War, is now the single global superpower, writes Augusto Zamora, professor of international public law and international relations at the UAM. However, is the US in fact the only pole of power, or does its hegemony rest on an array of circumstantial facts that will disappear in the years to come? the author asks in this article. The danger of today\’s militaristic whirlpool is that to hold onto power the right-wing that rules the US will have to keep the country and the world in a continuous state of war, in the purest Orwellian sense. Europe (and the world) should understand that guaranteeing any more of Washington\’s military imperialism could generate an interminable conflict combining religious fanaticism, 19th century geopolitics, and lite fascism. As Henry Kamen said, \’\’The preservation of the Spanish Empire was due to the general passivity of all other powers.\’\’ The same holds true for the hyperpower of the US. But as with Spain its hegemony will be ephemeral. Questioning the heretofore unquestionable power of the US is the price humanity will pay for a safer, multi-polar world.

It has become commonplace to speak of the unipolar world. As with the process mis-named globalisation, few seem willing to question what seems unobjectionable, namely that the United States, victor of the Cold War, is now the single global superpower and the country around which the world turns.

However, is the US in fact the only pole of power, or does its hegemony rest on an array of circumstances that will disappear in the years and decades to come?

Regarding American military pre-eminence, it should be noted that the US has never faced an equal adversary alone. Its territorial expansion –the mythologised and Hollywoodised conquest of the West– was the first planned genocide in history. Then came Mexico and a lagging Spain, defeated in 1898. Then Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Panama. US participation in World War One was symbolic, while in WWII, though its role was far greater, it fought alongside allies like the USSR, which had broken the back of Nazi power by itself.

There was, luckily for the world, no war between the US and USSR, though there were two conflicts in which the US fought against China and, indirectly, against the USSR. In Korea in 1951 US troops were almost expelled from the peninsula by the Chinese army. The war ended in a stalemate that showed the impotence of the US. The case of Vietnam goes without mention.

Until a few years ago the costs of the Cold War were shared by western powers and Japan. In the Gulf War the US fought at the head of a coalition made up of 50 countries and funded by ten of them.The war in Yugoslavia was the work of NATO, which footed the bill.

In Afghanistan, the situation changed. Though made less costly by the assistance of Russia and Europe, the war in Afghanistan was conducted at Washington’s expense. The Iraq War has to be entirely paid for by the US, with a minimum contribution by the UK. Both are clearly deficitary wars, whose costs not even Iraqi oil could compensate for when you consider the enormous financial toll they have taken (50 billion dollars according to the World Bank) plus the expense of maintaining the occupation for a substantial period of time, at 4 billion dollars per month.

It could be said that the US has passed through four stages of imperialism. The phase of local imperialism, with its absolute benefits, lasted from its independence to 1898, during which the country’s extensive expansion and industrialisation, and its capitalisation of the benefits of this period, transformed it into a major power. Then came the phase of economic imperialism, with net benefits, lasting until the Second World War, during which the US was not interested in being a major global player but merely in expanding and consolidating its economic and financial power. The third phase could be called deficitary global imperialism, given the fact that, as shown in the Korean and Vietnam wars, the US economy could be affected by the need to keep up with the USSR.

The fall of the Soviet Union opened the present and final phase, in which the US appears as the absolute victor of the Cold War and the sole planetary hyperpower. Though it may seem paradoxical, for the first time in its history the US has entered into a period of net-loss military imperialism in which it is required to consume gigantic quantities of resources to maintain its status as superpower hegemon, with diminished economic and political benefits. Its most recent military adventures have been paid for by the US itself and failed to produce any form of income. Given its notable lack political credibility, this new phase of net-loss military imperialism will tend to increase for various reasons.

The first reason is that the US is no longer the world’s major industrial or trade power: the EU is, and the inclusion of the new EU nations will further cement this status. As noted by Emanuel Todd, the US has become an economy that is dependent on the rest of the world. Its federal budget went from a surplus of 2.3 percent in 2002 to a deficit of the same percentage in late 2002, ballooning to 500 billion dollars in 2003. Domestic savings have dropped from an average of 5 percent in the 1990s to an historic low of 1.3 percent. To compensate, the country has had to absorb surplus foreign savings, producing a major current accounts deficit.

This situation will only be made worse by the drastic tax cuts, which will benefit the richest 1 percent of the country and force a reduction in social programmes.

It is in the traditional military area that the US has no rivals. Its budget of 460 billion dollars –45 percent of total military spending worldwide– is impossible to compete with. The problem is that this spending has little practical use. If we accept the assertion that terrorism is the principal threat to the US, tanks and fighter jets are useless in fighting it, as Israel knows well.

If the target is instead enemy nations, Washington’s present strategy seems far from successful as well. The US toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan but its control of the country is limited to the area around Kabul, and the war continues. Two hundred soldiers US have died since the victory over the Taliban. In Iraq, guerilla actions have caused more casualties than the war itself and will continue. How long will the US accept this situation given its aversion to casualties? And how long can its economy hold on before falling into crisis?

Washington’s about-face with regard to the UN is perhaps the clearest signal that among the few sensible elements of the Bush administration there is the conviction that the US alone cannot control the situation in Iraq, not to mention the inferno in the Middle East. Bush has asked for 87 billion dollars to ”finish winning” the war, yet wants other countries to pay a substantial amount of the economic and human costs. In this uncertain landscape, only the oil sector and military-industrial complex stand to benefit from the waste and global insecurity produced by the rampant militarism of Bush.

The danger of today’s intensely militarised environment is that to hold onto power the right-wing that rules the US will have to keep the country, and the world, in a continuous state of war, in the purest Orwellian sense. War will be peace, and oppression, liberty. For this to happen, there will need to be rogue states and a continuing hysteria about the threat of terrorism.

The real problem for the US is not the group of weak and isolated poor countries that it has reduced to pariahs. Its problem is what to do once Russia, when it recovers from the disasters of Yeltsin and China, when it reaches the level of power that it is consolidating with Asiatic patience, reclaim the international positions that they are due. The United States cannot go to war against them without destroying the world. Nor can it challenge them in their spheres of influence. The continued US presence in Afghanistan depends on Russia’s goodwill, as shown in 2001. If this goodwill fades, the situation will become precarious.

The other problem is the euro. If more and more of the world’s savings are ploughed into this currency, how will the United States finance its chronic deficit and military spending? Will it resort to economic war to destroy the EU? Will it use its allies from the ”new Europe” to dynamite the European project?

Behind the apparent omnipotence of the US, powerful forces are at work. Europe (and the world) should recognise this and understand that guaranteeing any more of Washington’s military imperialism could generate an interminable conflict combining religious fanaticism, 19th century geopolitics, and lite fascism. As Henry Kamen said, ”The preservation of the Spanish Empire was due to the general passivity of all other powers.” The same holds true for the hyperpower of the United States. But as with Spain its hegemony will be ephemeral. Questioning the heretofore unquestionable power of the US is the price humanity will pay for a safer, multi-polar world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)