The Cellar - View Single Post - AFTER THE WINNING OF THE WAR - United States: wider still and wider By Eric Hobsbawm

Count Zero · 06-11-2003, 02:26 PM

There are internal reasons why the US empire may not last, the most immediate being that most Americans are not interested in imperialism or in world domination in the sense of running the world. What they are interested in is what happens to them in the US. The weakness of the US economy is such that at some stage both the US government and electors will decide that it is much more important to concentrate on the economy than to carry on with foreign military adventures (6). All the more so as these foreign military interventions will have to be largely paid for by the Americans themselves, which was not the case in the Gulf war, nor to a very great extent in the cold war.
Since 1997-98 we have been living in a crisis of the capitalist world economy. It is not going to collapse, but nevertheless it is unlikely that the US will carry on with ambitious foreign affairs when it has serious problems at home. Even by local business standards Bush does not have an adequate economic policy for the US. And Bush's existing international policy is not a particularly rational one for US imperial interests - and certainly not for the interests of US capitalism. Hence the divisions of opinion within the US government.
The key issue now is what will the Americans do next, and how will other countries react? Will some countries, like Britain - the only genuine member of the ruling coalition - go ahead and back anything the US plans? Their governments must indicate that there are limits to what the Americans can do with their power. The most positive contribution so far has been made by the Turks, simply by saying there are things they are not prepared to do, even though they know it would pay. But at the moment the major preoccupation is that of - if not containing - at any rate educating or re-educating the US. There was a time when the US empire recognised limitations, or at least the desirability of behaving as though it had limitations. This was largely because the US was afraid of somebody else - the Soviet Union. In the absence of this kind of fear, enlightened self- interest and education have to take over.
Edited by Victoria Brittain
________________________________________________
* Eric Hobsbawm is a historian; among his works is Age of Extremes: The Shorter 20th: 1914-1991 (Michael Joseph, London, 1994, paperback by Abacus, London, 1995)
(1) The Age of Empire 1875-1914, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1987.
(2) Op cit.
(3) Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Owl Books, 2001.
(4) "France protests US media plot", International Herald Tribune, 16 May 2003.
(5) Eric Alterman, "United States: making up the news", Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, March 2003.
(6) "US unemployment hits an 8-year high", International Herald Tribune, 3 May 2003.

(end)

06-11-2003, 02:26 PM	#3
Count Zero Colloquialist Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 75	There are internal reasons why the US empire may not last, the most immediate being that most Americans are not interested in imperialism or in world domination in the sense of running the world. What they are interested in is what happens to them in the US. The weakness of the US economy is such that at some stage both the US government and electors will decide that it is much more important to concentrate on the economy than to carry on with foreign military adventures (6). All the more so as these foreign military interventions will have to be largely paid for by the Americans themselves, which was not the case in the Gulf war, nor to a very great extent in the cold war. Since 1997-98 we have been living in a crisis of the capitalist world economy. It is not going to collapse, but nevertheless it is unlikely that the US will carry on with ambitious foreign affairs when it has serious problems at home. Even by local business standards Bush does not have an adequate economic policy for the US. And Bush's existing international policy is not a particularly rational one for US imperial interests - and certainly not for the interests of US capitalism. Hence the divisions of opinion within the US government. The key issue now is what will the Americans do next, and how will other countries react? Will some countries, like Britain - the only genuine member of the ruling coalition - go ahead and back anything the US plans? Their governments must indicate that there are limits to what the Americans can do with their power. The most positive contribution so far has been made by the Turks, simply by saying there are things they are not prepared to do, even though they know it would pay. But at the moment the major preoccupation is that of - if not containing - at any rate educating or re-educating the US. There was a time when the US empire recognised limitations, or at least the desirability of behaving as though it had limitations. This was largely because the US was afraid of somebody else - the Soviet Union. In the absence of this kind of fear, enlightened self- interest and education have to take over. Edited by Victoria Brittain ________________________________________________ * Eric Hobsbawm is a historian; among his works is Age of Extremes: The Shorter 20th: 1914-1991 (Michael Joseph, London, 1994, paperback by Abacus, London, 1995) (1) The Age of Empire 1875-1914, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1987. (2) Op cit. (3) Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Owl Books, 2001. (4) "France protests US media plot", International Herald Tribune, 16 May 2003. (5) Eric Alterman, "United States: making up the news", Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, March 2003. (6) "US unemployment hits an 8-year high", International Herald Tribune, 3 May 2003. (end)