Echos of Empires Past...

[Thoran]

This article captures (much more eloquently than I'm capable of) my primary concerns regarding the true repurcussions of the war. It also succinctly conveys what I tend to think of as the real risks (US policymakers acting unilaterally and rashly, simply because they feel they can get away with it) and potential rewards (hegemonically enforced global stability) of the path we seem to be on.

from http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/14/nyt.bernstein/ - New York Times article:

Echoes of empires past By Richard Bernstein New York Times Monday, April 14, 2003 Posted: 6:42 AM EDT (1042 GMT) BERLIN, Germany -- As the United States began the task of finding Iraqi leaders to take power after the war is over, there were many in Europe and elsewhere who were reminded of an earlier period in global history — the era of imperialism. "What cannot now be disguised, as U.S. marines swagger around the Iraqi capital swathing toppled statues of Saddam Hussein with the stars and stripes and declaring 'We own Baghdad,' is the crudely colonial nature of this enterprise," wrote Seumas Milne, a columnist in The Guardian, the leftist British daily. Mr. Milne's comment, in a newspaper that rarely misses a chance to cast the United States in a negative light, was an especially virulent and hostile expression of a view that has become common in recent days. That view, which Mr. Milne shares with many other commentators and government officials, is that the war in Iraq confirms the status of the United States as no longer just a superpower, but an unambiguously imperial power. It is seen as a country that uses its might to establish dominion over much of the rest of the world, as Rome once did, or as Britain did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many Americans will quarrel with that view, convinced not just of the absence of any American ambition to control foreign territory but persuaded by the Bush administration's assurance that power in Iraq will be turned over to Iraqis as swiftly as possible. It is not generally part of the American self-conception to associate the United States or even the Pax Americana with the great empires of the past. But elsewhere in the world, the United States is being seen in a new way, as the latest — and perhaps most powerful — of the imperialist powers that bestrode the globe over the centuries. As evidence, critics cite not just the sudden collapse of Iraqi resistance, but the stunning American military triumphs in recent years, in Afghanistan, Kosovo and in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. With this observation, that the United States represents what the respected German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this week called a "hegemonic internationalism," comes the question: will it turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of the world? "The key terms of the new imperialism will be the ability of the U.S. to provide security and stability for other nations without imposing an American way of life," Karl-Otto Honrich, a sociologist at Goethe University in Frankfurt, said in a telephone interview. After the war in Iraq began, Mr. Honrich wrote a much noted article subtitled "Without a Hegemonic Power There Can Be No Peace." "Over the last 10 years, U.S. hegemony has become clearer as a function of what America has done in the world," he said. "It has taken on the role of world police in several cases, and successfully done so. "The function of the U.S. right now is to tell the world there is someone who is ready to fight in cases of big security and disorder," Mr. Honrich said. "The U.S. has taken on this role, and hence its leadership has become a social reality." To some in Europe, the operative word is not so much imperialism as it is unilateralism. The frequently repeated American contention that the United States led a broad coalition into Iraq has not been very convincing to those who feel that the war illustrates a new twist on imperial behavior: the use of pre-emption in the face of widespread opposition even from close allies. "The neo-conservatives in the U.S. have developed a new imperial vision," said Guillaume Parmentier, the director of the Center on the United States at the French Institute of International Relations. Senior Bush administration advisers, like Paul D. Wolfowitz and Richard N. Perle, are commonly seen in Europe as having gained decisive influence over foreign policy to the disadvantage of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who is viewed as a sort of defeated multilateralist. The speed of the victory in Iraq is being seen as likely to bolster the prestige and influence of those in Washington who, Europeans believe, would now like to embark on further military conquests, in Syria, Iran or possibly North Korea. "Traditionally, the U.S. has emphasized its great convincing and coercive power on other states," Mr. Parmentier said. "Its foreign policy managed to convince other heads of state that what they were doing was in their national interest, and this was American's great strength. "Today, the U.S. is affirming a much more blunt and brutal stance," Mr. Parmentier continued. "Its vision for foreign affairs has somewhat retrograded to a more national or even nationalistic definition, in the most limited sense of the term, as it was understood in the 19th century." Outsiders wonder whether the United States will use its power from now on as it has in Iraq, free of the constraints of multilateralism and dismissive of its allies. Some answer that question with a stark new definition of the American goal, which is not so much to control unconventional weapons or to bring about government change in Iraq, but to establish unchallenged global dominance. This view, which would seem strange, almost paranoid, to many Americans, is heard in serious and respectable places in Europe. "The 'war against terrorism' is certainly an excuse, and an organizing principle, but not in and of itself a primary motive for a strategic new direction in international relations and American world policy," Stefan Frölich, a German scholar and a professor of international politics at Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen, wrote in the "hegemonic internationalism" commentary in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a conservative daily with a long tradition of pro-American views. "In this sense, the war against Iraq can be seen as a logical and necessary defense of American predominance," Mr. Frölich wrote. Critics of "the increasing imperial assertion of the Bush regime," he continued, "are judged to be promoting a policy of 'appeasement' toward rogue states like Iraq." No historical period is exactly like another, and few people are arguing that the United States is a new Rome or a new colonialist Britain. In the main view being expressed in Europe, it is not the classic imperialist goal of national wealth and resources that is driving the United States. In the more radical view of American power — represented by The Guardian or by Mr. Frölich — the United States is seeking global dominance almost for its own sake. The more moderate view is that Washington has reacted, or perhaps overreacted, to the threat of terrorism. The American destiny, as the German newsweekly Der Spiegel put it recently, is "to bring peace to the world through war." In other words, the motive is good, even if the actions are violent and possibly unjustified. But there seems to be a strong emerging view that the immensity of American power amounts to something different in the world. "Throughout the history of mankind, certainly no country has existed that has so thoroughly dominated the world with its politics, its tanks and its products as the United States does today," Der Spiegel said. What are the consequences? Some commentators are waiting to see whether new military actions stem from the Iraqi victory, which, they believe, would be final confirmation of the new American imperium. "Does the policy remain on this trajectory and they go off hunting other regimes that are judged undesirable and dangerous?" said Michael Emerson of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "Or do they say: 'Whew, that was a sweat politically, the Iraqi campaign. We better slow down and attempt to reconstruct multinational understanding and consensus.' " Echoing this view, but with eyes on another potential crisis, an influential South Korean commentator, Kim Young Hie, a columnist for the newspaper JoongAng Ilbo, worries that American success in Iraq will backfire when it comes to North Korea. "For Pyongyang, Iraq was the second shock and awe after Afghanistan," Mr. Kim wrote. "When Bush is determined to do something, he just goes ahead. And America undoubtedly has the military prowess to carry out his will. This message is sinking in with Kim Jong Il."

The real question in my mind is where will it lead...

Will the "Rummie's" in the US Government run roughshod over domestic and international opposition? IMO this would lead us down a path of sequential conflicts, each causing increased alarm and anger in the domestic and international community.

Will we step back and try to recover some sense of mulitlateralism? I HOPE this is where things go, I honestly don't see any evil empires out there that should be an immediate target.

Syria? - Come on... just media hype I hope. They're a small country with limited resources, they've been very cooperative in the past when it came to working with us. If we start beating war drums against Syria, I'll be attending anti-war demonstrations... and I've never protested anything in my life.

Iran? - They're well on their way to forcing demacratic change from within... any action against them would be plain stupid IMO.

North Korea? - They're well on their way to self destructing, and other coutries in the region seem inclined not to do anything. I say ignore 'em and let China and Russia sort them out. As long as they don't specifically threaten Japan or Australia I don't think we should do a thing, including talks (unless they include all regional powers).

What does everyone else think?

I think Germany has some answering to do for their part in providing weapons to Iraq and for doling out contracts in Iraq that they lost btw because we went in and got rid of the regime.

I think they need to sit back and seriously see where they further harmed the people of Iraq with those contracts before they whine about not being allowed a role in the reconstruction.

And Russia.

And France.

You asked.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Lil Lil: I think Germany has some answering to do for their part in providing weapons to Iraq and for doling out contracts in Iraq that they lost btw because we went in and got rid of the regime. I think they need to sit back and seriously see where they further harmed the people of Iraq with those contracts before they whine about not being allowed a role in the reconstruction. And Russia. And France. You asked.

American companies provided Iraq with chemicals and biological agents as well in the past, should those companies be prohibited from profiting from the reconstruction as well?

If Bush has any integrity they should.

[Seraph]

American companies provided Iraq with chemicals and biological agents as well in the past, should those companies be prohibited from profiting from the reconstruction as well?

The US accounted for something like 1% of the weapons (all weapons) sold to Iraq after 1978. Germany and France accounted for over 25%. France also attempted to help Iraq build a nuclear reactor that could have produced weapons (France seems very pro nuclear proliferation, don't really know why).

Germany was much more heavily involved in supplying Iraq with chemical weapons then the US was. Depending on what you count as "supplying" there were somewhere between 4x and 7x as many German companies supplying Iraq then there were US companies.

This is the list of US comapnes that appeared in the Iraqi Declaration.
Legend used in this list:
A = nuclear program, (Due to the nature of nuclear weaons research this can include a lot of stuff)
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.

1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A)
13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

[Skunk]

I think Germany has some answering to do for their part in providing weapons to Iraq and for doling out contracts in Iraq that they lost btw because we went in and got rid of the regime. I think they need to sit back and seriously see where they further harmed the people of Iraq with those contracts before they whine about not being allowed a role in the reconstruction. And Russia. And France.

I'm afraid that even this administration has figured out that it doesn't work this way. Here's where we are:

1. The US/UK go to war without UN authorisation saying to the UN: "Sod you, we don't need you".
2. $76billion dollars later, Bush suddenly discovers that going it alone means paying for it alone. Oops! (and that $76billion doesn't even cover the cost of replacing all that spent ordinance).
3. Bush doesn't have the cash to rebuild Iraq so he goes to the World Bank and asks for a reconstruction loan for Iraq. "Not a chance" says the World Bank, "We don't lend money to governments not recognised by the UN". "Oh!" says Bush, then I'll go to the IMF.
4. The IMF says "What goes for the World Bank goes for us too, come back after you've been to the UN".
5. US Treasury Secretary, John Snow discovers that Iraq owes more than $100billion dollars to Russia, France and Germany and that those debts must be paid first or renogiated with any money that Iraq does get from loans. So he asks France, Germany and Russia to 'forgive' the debts! France Germany and Russia say "Perhaps you'd better tell us what is in it for us first..."

That's where we have gotten to. Bush now has a stark choice, he can either:
a) Underwrite the reconstruction loans to Iraq (not sure how he is going to do that given that he has so generously paid off his political allies with big tax cuts and didn't even have the cash to reward the veterns) or
b) Come to an economic agreement with France and Russia (and possibly Germany, depending on how much the others ask for)...

Humble pie anyone?

4.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Skunk: Quote: I think Germany has some answering to do for their part in providing weapons to Iraq and for doling out contracts in Iraq that they lost btw because we went in and got rid of the regime. I think they need to sit back and seriously see where they further harmed the people of Iraq with those contracts before they whine about not being allowed a role in the reconstruction. And Russia. And France.

I'm afraid that even this administration has figured out that it doesn't work this way. Here's where we are:

1. The US/UK go to war without UN authorisation saying to the UN: "Sod you, we don't need you".
2. $76billion dollars later, Bush suddenly discovers that going it alone means paying for it alone. Oops! (and that $76billion doesn't even cover the cost of replacing all that spent ordinance).
3. Bush doesn't have the cash to rebuild Iraq so he goes to the World Bank and asks for a reconstruction loan for Iraq. "Not a chance" says the World Bank, "We don't lend money to governments not recognised by the UN". "Oh!" says Bush, then I'll go to the IMF.
4. The IMF says "What goes for the World Bank goes for us too, come back after you've been to the UN".
5. US Treasury Secretary, John Snow discovers that Iraq owes more than $100billion dollars to Russia, France and Germany and that those debts must be paid first or renogiated with any money that Iraq does get from loans. So he asks France, Germany and Russia to 'forgive' the debts! France Germany and Russia say "Perhaps you'd better tell us what is in it for us first..."

That's where we have gotten to. Bush now has a stark choice, he can either:
a) Underwrite the reconstruction loans to Iraq (not sure how he is going to do that given that he has so generously paid off his political allies with big tax cuts and didn't even have the cash to reward the veterns) or
b) Come to an economic agreement with France and Russia (and possibly Germany, depending on how much the others ask for)...

Humble pie anyone?

4.[/QUOTE]Or we could tell France, Russia and Germany to go screw themselves and we'll just go ahead and pay for it all. That's my vote! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

I think you make good points about Syria, Iran, and N.K. Thoran. I think you set up a fair scenario, Skunk, though I'll tease you by saying I completely disagree with point "4" and think it is absolutely stupid on your part. I certainly don't want to bankroll any more war with my taxes. So far it has cost every tax-paying American about $2K. I would never in my life ever ever send $2K to overseas to charity, assuming I'd even spend that much at home.

I think the US track record regarding imperialism is amazingly good and we are not colonialists nor have we ever been. We have taken over and subsequently given away most every piece of real estate we have ever conquered. We could own land all over the world, yet we lease instead. Our citizens don't want imperialism and neither does the government - we do not have the patience to micromanage the lives of other peoples - we just want them not not annoy the pee-water out of us all the time.

I think Karl Otton Honrich from the article desires hegemony in the world 'cause daddy and grand-daddy were Nazis and he's a control freak. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Wutang]

Despite what some people are saying about the evils of so called "US imperialism" today, there is still a much greater threat in the explosive combination of Islamic Fundamentalism and Arab nationalism.

Something has to be done to curb or redirect this kind of emotional extremism.

The US now has a really has a good chance now to build something better than what existed in Iraq with Saddam.

Certainly a better chance of understanding between ordinary Muslims and Americans in general.

As for North Korea, it's sad to see that millions more will die of starvation before any significant changes can happen. that society is going to implode soon and deprogramming a society is going to be a huge undertaking.

[ 04-14-2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[Azred]

Don't you know that the United States has a destiny that has been molded for the last two centuries? We are at the culmination of a dream of creating a Grand Unification of all the nations of the world under one flag. Yes, the One World Government is about to become a reality. Are you ready to become a member of the permanent Coalition of the Willing? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]

[img]tongue.gif[/img]