Arab World Awaits US Election
Arabs Worried About The Impact Of 'Second US Civil War’, by Amir Taheri
To me, this is actually a good sign. I did not read the article considering the US election; but, rather, pondering the future of the mid-east over the next decade, no matter who wins the presidency. The mere fact that the Arab world could be put on hold or descend into chaos tells me that the American role in the mid-east has become indispensable and irremovable.
America is the only superpower, and the mid-east has recognized it as such. This recognition means many things (assuming the mid-east is right):
First, Arab nations will not strongly oppose the US, as they fear the unrestrained power of the American military (‘unrestrained’ by international or foreign bodies, to be exact).
Second, America’s word may be as powerful as America’s military, because America has an unlimited ability to back its word with a military.
Third, America no longer needs the highest GDP or greatest production capacity in the world to remain the economic superpower. This is because American currency will be the strongest in the world, American industry will be the safest and most reliable in the world, and technological advancements will ensure that the US military is the best in the world while guaranteeing new markets for which only American companies can supply.
Fourth, Atlas cannot shrug. America can’t ‘drop the ball’. More simply, America’s presence in the world must be constant and influential, so that international relations will work in harmony with the current structure of global politics. If America does not act like the only superpower, the position which America is stuck with, the world will completely ignore American influence and, therefore, the US will not be able to do what it must do on the international scene. This is comparable to a football referee who does nothing in the first half of a game, and is ignored by the players when he tries to do something in the second half, because the players no longer believe that the referee has any power. Simply, the power of the United States must be recognized by the world, and the US cannot fail its global responsibilities.
Fifth, the responsibility of the United States is not the task of ensuring internationalism. Internationalism simply for the sake of internationalism will set a precedent that the US should not be limited to. Internationalism because multi-national measures are needed is fine, but American power must be distinct and completely effective as a unilateral force. If America were to follow a policy of internationalism, America would be guided by the rest of the world. This contradicts the global balance of power, which shows that the US has the ability to lead the world. “Leading the world into internationalism” is not leadership; it is helping the world circumvent American power.
These points are, of course, based on my limited knowledge of international relations, and have a considerable possibility for error. In fact, I’ve never heard of a good “bullet points for an unopposed superpower”, but this post presents an interesting theory/theories at the least.
That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins.
...
"The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months [due to a dispute over election results] cannot be taken lightly," suggests an Arab diplomat. "Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months."
To me, this is actually a good sign. I did not read the article considering the US election; but, rather, pondering the future of the mid-east over the next decade, no matter who wins the presidency. The mere fact that the Arab world could be put on hold or descend into chaos tells me that the American role in the mid-east has become indispensable and irremovable.
America is the only superpower, and the mid-east has recognized it as such. This recognition means many things (assuming the mid-east is right):
First, Arab nations will not strongly oppose the US, as they fear the unrestrained power of the American military (‘unrestrained’ by international or foreign bodies, to be exact).
Second, America’s word may be as powerful as America’s military, because America has an unlimited ability to back its word with a military.
Third, America no longer needs the highest GDP or greatest production capacity in the world to remain the economic superpower. This is because American currency will be the strongest in the world, American industry will be the safest and most reliable in the world, and technological advancements will ensure that the US military is the best in the world while guaranteeing new markets for which only American companies can supply.
Fourth, Atlas cannot shrug. America can’t ‘drop the ball’. More simply, America’s presence in the world must be constant and influential, so that international relations will work in harmony with the current structure of global politics. If America does not act like the only superpower, the position which America is stuck with, the world will completely ignore American influence and, therefore, the US will not be able to do what it must do on the international scene. This is comparable to a football referee who does nothing in the first half of a game, and is ignored by the players when he tries to do something in the second half, because the players no longer believe that the referee has any power. Simply, the power of the United States must be recognized by the world, and the US cannot fail its global responsibilities.
Fifth, the responsibility of the United States is not the task of ensuring internationalism. Internationalism simply for the sake of internationalism will set a precedent that the US should not be limited to. Internationalism because multi-national measures are needed is fine, but American power must be distinct and completely effective as a unilateral force. If America were to follow a policy of internationalism, America would be guided by the rest of the world. This contradicts the global balance of power, which shows that the US has the ability to lead the world. “Leading the world into internationalism” is not leadership; it is helping the world circumvent American power.
These points are, of course, based on my limited knowledge of international relations, and have a considerable possibility for error. In fact, I’ve never heard of a good “bullet points for an unopposed superpower”, but this post presents an interesting theory/theories at the least.
posted by Chris at
6:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home