cj#817> responses to GRI/I.1 – “Evolution of Geopolitics”

1998-08-20

Richard Moore

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998
From: Jeff Jewell <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: GRI/I.1: "Evolution of geopolitics: from Pax Romana to Pax
Americana, via nationalism"

Dear Richard,

Congratulations on your absolutely brilliant analysis, masterfully presented!

Several points --

Firstly, while America is an offspring of Europe, and the collective
imperialism under Pax Americana [which a good friend refers to as Pox
Americana] is clearly a transmogrification of Euro colonial imperialism,
your terminology of 'Euro' power and 'Euro' interests etc to define the
former fails to give credit [i.e. blame] where due -- specifically to
America, as the primary inventor and implementor of this diabolical new
world order.  As a question, I wonder what assistance American elite
planners of the 1940s may have had from their Anglo counterparts -- who
were of course the leading practitioners of Euro imperialism, and obviously
about to lose their empire -- unless they might be able to enter into a
junior partnership arrangement with their prodigal sons. [The English
vision of the political economy was also influenced at the time by Hayek,
who shortly thereafter transplanted his message to the Chicago school.]

Secondly, have you read the Iron Mountain Report [i.e. the strategic
analysis, purported to be a hoax, of the implications of a general and
permanent state of peace, arising from the elimination of national armies
-- replaced by global peace-keeping forces]?  Any comments?

Thirdly, while I'm in complete agreement with your assertion that "It is
inconceivable that China would be allowed to reverse the direction of the
collective system", this argument applied to Canada [and our recent
discussion of Orchard] would seem to be quite consistent with my projection
that no leader would be permitted to extricate this or any other country
from the collective imperialist system -- without facing whatever force as
might be deemed necessary by the collective mafia dons to compel its
submission and dissuade any other such acts of independence.

Cheers to you,

--------------

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your encouragement!

re/"Euro" - I think I'll switch to the term "West".

There is certainly a special relationship between the US and the UK.  It
was Churchill and FDR who signed the "United Nations Declaration"; it was
Reagan & Thatcher that simultaneously launced the neoliberal revolution;
the UK was the primary ally in the Gulf War; etc.  The US is, after all, a
UK spin-off.

re/Iron Mountain - The observations in this book seem uncannily perceptive,
quite extrodinary really.  It makes me wonder if in fact it _is based on
the results of some kind of high-level study, or series of studies, even if
the scenario presented in the book isn't what really happened.  If so, then
the book deserves serious attention as "government thinking".  If on the
other hand, as the purported author claims, he just "made it up", then it
deserves more recognition for its vision -- the guy's on a par with Orwell
or Huxley in his ability to project forward from current circumstances.
It seems that the uncertain origin of the book detracts from the
recognition it deserves.

re/Canada - every nation, not just Canada, is being pushed by the global
regime, and will not be allowed to hold back its rulings.  What's special
about China is that military force may be required.  It seems that perhaps
Canada and New Zealand have been singled out as "precedent hosts", places
where sovereignty is to be defeated first, setting the precedents that will
apply later to everyone else.  The US government pretends to ignore what's
happening, even though it knows the precedents set elsewhere will apply to
it as well.  The campaign to dismantle national sovereignty is global and
systematic.

re/Orchard - David Orchard is a conservative Canadian politician who seems
to be sincerely running on the platform of "taking back sovereignty".  You
and I have been discussing whether those of us opposed to globalization
should support him.  You suggest that his effort must fail, given the power
and determination of the globalist forces, and we shouldn't support him
because that would be fighting a battle we cannot win.

I disagree.  If we can believe he's sincere, then I think he should have
our support.  But it is important that the issue be framed at the most
fundamental level: the importance of Canadian independence.  If Orchard
gets elected, we would want Canada, as a whole nation, to pereive itself as
taking a couragous stand for independence, and we would want that to be
known to the rest of the world.  Then if Canada is beaten down by the
global regime, it could serve as a visceral "wake up call" to everyone
else, it might make the sovereignty issue real to people.  If we want to
defeat globalization there must be engagements of various kinds -- whether
they succeed or fail they will help build the movement.

rkm

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998
From: Nikolai S. Rozov <•••@••.•••>
Organization: Novosibirsk State University
Subject:      Re: Evolution of geopolitics (for review)
To: •••@••.•••

Thank you Richard for sending to philofhi your comparison of pax
romana and pax americana and a brief criticism of the Huntington's
model
---<snip>---

the future fate and shape of Western global dominance for a long
time is (since Hegel and later Spengler) and with no doubt will be in
the focus of scholars' discussions

unfortunately i had no opportunity to get and read Huntington's book
and i know about his ideas only from reviews. strange but Richard's
description gave more positive impression than i had had previously

no absolute peace in future... but it is not (only?) a vicious
apologia for  future interventions but just a very plausible
geopolitical prediction (shifts of wealth, population and armoury
inevitably lead to shifts in territorial power, mainly by wars and/or
military aliances; but the first shifts are evidently eternal!)

main load of control as a responsibility of regional powers seems
much more efficient and economical than any other alternatives
(global government or pure anarchy between atomic nation states)

a geopolitical predominance of the West and NATO is really argueble
but as for me i strongly prefer this hegemony than the probable
alternative ones (say, the planetry Islamic, Chinese or restored
Russian-Communist) just because of existance of old and real
democratic and liberal traditions that necessarily will provide
limits for aggression and coercion, and even now provide such
brave antisystemic activists as Richard Moore (I've heard nothing
from or about Islamic or Chinese activists who appeal to defend the
world from too dangerous Islamic or Chinese future hegemony)

Richard properly compares the planned future world order with a mafia
structure but it is possible with no less success to make a
comparison with a nation-state: the same 'biggest gun' in hands of a
state which obtains 'monopoly for legitimate violence on its
territory'(Weber)

in fact these comparisons give us a hint of a significant difference:
in mafia one is a hegemon because managed to grasp the biggest gun
(i.e. support of most powerful coercive coalitions) and in democratic
state there are elections, laws and legal order

no we can see TWO real positive alternatives to the Huntington's
model: the (elected) World Government and World Legal Order.

a discussion on these matters took place in WSN just 2 years ago,
W.Wagar, I.Wallerstein, T.Boswell, Al Bergesen, C.Chase-Dunn,
R.Moore, me, and some others took part in it.

i strongly recommend everybody who are interested in this issue to
get and read it (the whole discussion is collected as a gopher file
in WS-archive by Chris Chase-Dunn). By any WWW browther you can
reach:

gopher://csf.colorado.edu:70/00/wsystems/praxis/globprax

or:

http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems

the go to World-Systems Archive
then       to praxis

i'll give two my pieces from this discussion in the next msg, but the
discussion contains much more valuable material (including harsh
criticisms of my ideas)

my interest and questions for possible further discussion in philofhi
is as following:

1) if the Huntingon's (or like) model of future world order are
implausible, what real alternatives can be suggested?

2) what criteria (humanistic, moral, multicultural, democratic, or
other) should be put in the basis of building such alternatives?

3) for what extent these alternatives are realistic and sustainable
from the viewpoint of expierence of world history?

best from Siberia
Nikolai

---------

Dear Nikolai,

Thanks indeed for your thoughtful responses.

I find it difficult to understand how people can question the geopolitical
hegemony of the US.  One might claim that the US is _politically restrained
from deploying its power, and I would challenge that claim with
considerable evidence, but the raw power is clearly there.  Nuclear subs,
satellites, carrier task forces, cruise missiles, electronic
counter-measures -- all of these are undergoing continual refinement and
development in the US military program.

Not only that, but the US trains and arms many of the world's militaries,
and its intelligence services keep close tabs on what everyone's doing,
what weapons they're buying, and what their state of readiness is.  Not
only does the US have the _potential to get its way by force if necessary,
but it is actively engaged on an ongoing basis meddling here and there,
switching governments around, etc.  The fact is that the US _manages the
global geopolitics.  You might take a look at "Killing Hope" by William
Blum.

The effect of US policies is to create tension, to create instabilities.
The US isn't the only arms seller, but it's a very big one, and its policy
seems to be to arm everone to the teeth, even potential enemies like Iraq.
The US is creating Huntington's scenario.  By allowing Turkey to invade
Iraqi territory we are seeing the US experiment with the "core power"
concept, seeing how it goes over in public opinion, and debugging for
future episodes.  As Turkey is kept out of the EU, we see the
"civilizational boundaries" being defined and enforced.

Think how different the world would be if the US used its power and
influence to build a peaceful world, instead of world of tension.  What if
it embargoed arms to unstable nations instead of embargoing poor little
Cuba?  What if it led the fight for general disarmament, both nuclear and
conventional?  What if it used its vast intelligence information to mediate
disuptes and prevent conflict, instead of stirring up conflicts?  One way
to measure the geopolitical power of the US is to consider the magnitude of
the effect if the US were to change policies.

I like your discussion of alternatives.  I see serious inherent problems
with world government, and so I was glad to see your "World Legal Order".
And your desire to investigate "realistic and sustainable" for proposed
alternatives is welcome, and history holds good lessons for just about any
organizational scheme you can think of.

But I find it even more fruitful to investigate the following question: By
what means can "we" cause any change at all to be made in the direction
things are going?  How, in fact, could we implement a "better alternative"
if we had one in mind?

I think it is clear that only by overcoming capitalist political hegemony
can the course of events be changed in any significant way.  If we don't
overcome it, then our course is more or less clear, and it is a dismal one.
Even in the collapse scenario, and assuming enlightenment arises from the
ashes, the number of deaths would be staggering, a cost far too high to pay
if there is any conceivable alternative approach.

For capitalist hegemony to be overcome, there would need to be a popular
political uprising of unprecedented proportions, at least unprecedented
outside of full-scale armed revolutions.

In other words, the scenario in which we would be considering what "world
organization" to adopt is a scenario in which radical anti-systemic
governments have been elected in the West (at least), governments which are
backed by a fully mobilized populace.  Presumably this massive uprising
would be motivated by the danger of corporate globalization, and its agenda
would be one of national sovereignty, anti-imperialism, democracy, and
people-serving economics, more or less.

It seems to me that if Western nations were to reach this stage, then the
prospects for a peaceful and orderly world would be very promising.  I
don't believe formal international structures would be necessary.  The
world is a community of nations, and nations can simply collaborate for
their common good, just as people in a community do.

The massive mobilization necessary to overcome capitalist hegemony is in
fact the creation of the backbone of a strong, vibrant civil society.  The
world too can be a strong, vibrant, civil society of nations.  That is
simply congruence between the micro and the macro levels.

A problem arises; concerned nations gather, discuss, and reach agreement;
they sign a treaty; they live up to the treaty.  Why do we need more than
that?  That is, _if we can expect democratically mobilized societies to be
responsible societies.  I've got that much faith in human nature.  And if
that much faith isn't justified, I don't think any system is going to work.

rkm
http://cyberjournal.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To join the discussion on bringing about a movement
        for a democratic renaissance, send any message to:
                 •••@••.•••
                               ---
        To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list
        and a more general political discussion, send any message to:
                 •••@••.•••


Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com