Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:06:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul p <abbarocks_2000 at yahoo.com> Subject: Notable notes
Friends and PSN listers,
Greetings one and all. I was at the Political Economy of the World System conference yesterday. Wallerstein gave the keynote address. It was on the current state of US foreign policy in the context of the rise and fall of the US as a hegemonic power. Below are my notes, if anyone is interested. It should be noted that I add some detail and explanation as this was taken from an email I sent out to my students. Any mistakes are my fault. This is not a transcript and nothing here should be assumed to be quoted verbatim. I hope you find this worth a short read (Personal replies from friends not on the PSN list should be directed toward me, not "reply-all").
Paul Paolucci
INTRODUCTION
The conquest of Iraq is being read by Bush and the neo-cons (a term attached to the neo-conservatives, those who see themselves as being in the Reaganite mold) as freeing their hands for further militaryaction.
The hawks (those who hold an agressive militarist stance) from the Reagan period believed that the military was under utilized by Reagan himself (though they dare never say so in public) but its use will pay off in the long run. Their opponents in the U.S. (the doves) are gloomy over their loss on this issue. Wallerstein believes both groups have misread thesituation.
We are experience a decline in US hegemony in the world system. This hegemony can be seen as developing three stages.
1945-1967/1973: The Post-War Apogee1 967/1973-2001: The Late Summer Glow 2001-2025/2050: Anarchy the US cannot control
The Post-War Apogee. After WWII the US emerged as an unrivaled world power in the capitalist sphere. Only the USSR could come close. The corporations in the US dominated the economic system, but they and the US gov't came to realize that dominating the world-economy would be pointless if global consumer demand was low. Thus, the US took it upon itself to re-build the world-system, especially Europe and Japan. By 1949, Russia had the bomb and had to be negotiated with. At the Yalta Conference, three principles were basically agreed to (with some minor variations and deviations): 1) The status quo in terms of borders (i.e. Russia would not expand further into Europe beyond its East European satellites, nor would it conquer new territory elsewhere; the US would likewise control its domains, mainly Central America); 2) the world would settle into two zones, the capitalist arena and the communist bloc; 3) both would use denunciatory rhetoric as public relations ploy (e.g. the two main deviations were the Korean War and the Sprague Spring (I think these were his examples)).
The Cold War and this rhetoric mainly disguised the fact that Yalta agreements were basically a pact on global management by the two superpowers. Their real conflict was always less than the public image. Thus, the Cold War was in part choreographed. Its functoin was the construction and alignment of allies.
In the capitalist bloc, this was NATO. In the communist bloc, this was the Warsaw Pact. During this period, popular culture in the capitalist bloc was Americanized and the US defined the worldorder.
For example, the "Development" program was geared toward transforming the South (e.g. the periphery) but only a little (i.e. leave it to the South to mainly do it themself). Still, a series of "anti-systemic movements" transformed many peripheral societies, such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia. Only some were successful at the time, but they nevertheless raised challenges to the system as a whole (e.g. what if the success of a few provided inspiration to others?). The solution was to co-opt these regimes, though this did not work in Vietnam and Cuba. Finally, by the 1980's, many of these movements began to die out.
The Late Summer Glow (1967/1973-2001). The World-system was entering a long, Kondratieff B-phase or downturn. During this period, Europe and Japan began to rise and compete with the US in international markets. The system as a whole, however, began suffering from overproduction. Traditional anti-systemic behavior (national liberation movements) begin to lose their appeal. By 1968, world cultural revolution was taking off while the US was increasingly facing defeat in Vietnam. The US begins its decline in hegemony.
In any particular B-phase regardless of era, there are several indicative characteristics: 1) decline in profitability and a shift to more speculation; 2) capital flight from core to semi-periphery and periphery; 3) rise in world unemployment (nations begin exporting unemployment to one another).
By the 1990's, the international order the US constructed began to disintegrate. Europe was beginning to want more power (Maastrich treaty in the early 1990's, the European Union, the single currency, plans for common defense). The US responds by sponsoring the G7/G8 programs (i.e. organizing the largest political-economic nation-states into new institutions as a way to appease Europeans' concerns and counter their measures).
However, Russia begins to disintegrate too during this very period. This loosens the historical bonds somewhat that have tied Europe to the US (i.e. during the cold war Europe needed to consistenly be made to interpret its long term interests as lying with the US; the US consistently attempt to prevent a Paris-Berlin-Moscow alignment). The ability of the US to dictate policy to Europe declines.
The relative decline of the US/Russian detente-as-global-management forced a move towards settling conflicts in Central America and Africa.
But, at this time too the process of developmentalism collapse as well as the anti-systemic movements in general. Identity-based (gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, nationality) and Green-based movements (environmentalism) grow in influence, comparatively speaking. Their influence picks up some of the slack, but not much.
The world bourgeoisie mounts a counter-offensive under the Thatcher & Reagan regimes. Globalization replaces the developmentalist project. Reducing barriers to capital mobility and profitability are the rule, along with attacking labor organization. The IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) take the lead. There were three main objectives: 1) reduce wages; 2) externalize costs of environmental damage to the public; 3) reduce the size of welfare states.
By the late 1990's, the limits of this program were being reached. For example, currency instability world-wide increased, and new, unexpected leaders were chosen outside the US's ability to influence (South Korea, Russia, Indonesia). Neither the US nor Europesaw this coming.
Neither did elites see the protests in Seattle in 1999 coming either. The meetings of the World Trade Organization were brought to a standstill. Two world movements started coalescing: the ruling classes were meeting at Davos, Switzerland, and the anti-globalization and anti-capital crowd were meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
In the previous era of "multilateralism", world power revolved around the US/Europe/Japan axis versus the USSR-Warsaw Pact axis (with China playing a as-of-yet-to-be-determined role in the cold war period). The Porto Alegre group (peasants, trade unionists, activists, revolutionaries, academics, church groups) makes up the new pole, rather than the USSR or anti-systemicmovements.
During the election period, the Bushies (my term) hammered Clinton on foreign policy. Clinton played the "globalization via economic power" option. This was following longterm policy: Negotiation, then force if necessary. The goal had been to prevent an indepenent Europe and to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
The Anarchy the US Cannot Control (2001-2025/2050). Bush "wins" the "election". Some of his advisors were split: Do we continue the long term policy, the one Clinton likewise continued (a Colin Powell faction, though Wallerstein did not use that example, and Powell is eventually brought into the Bush camp)? Or, Should we change it to globalization via military power? This is the view three different groups in his administration held - the neo-cons, the religious right, and the right militarists. These three groups created a tightly knit bloc. They agreed: 1) US decline was real but reversible; 2) Resistance of allies and the public would line up with military action, and if not, they could be brought to acquiescence; and, 3) Intimidate the South militarily.
Hawks had not yet gotten any administration to yet follow these proscriptions. But Bush's "election" gave them the idea that this might be the rightadminstration to try it.
September 11 created a bonanza for the hawks favoring this line, and this moved Bush totally into their camp. They view military force as totally justified and now is the time to "go for broke" in the sense of expanding a world-war into new territory: first was Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Syria, Iran, and North Korea are being eyed as possibilities.
There are several problems they needed to overcome to pull off Iraq:
1) The Old Bush Guard. Many of Bush Sr.'s colleagues and advisors thought the Iraq war was a terrible idea and said so publicly. 2) France: Drew a line in the sand and got Russia and China to climb on board. 3) Porto Alegre: Organized world protests. 4) Turkey: Old alley refused the US's bribe.
Thus, the US invaded with almost the entire world, including old allies, against its plans. The hawks are now threatening other sections of the world with a similar policy. They are open about this use of intimindation. It is contained in their policy papers and they announce it explicitly. Not everyone isafraid, however.
TENDENCIES 1. The US gov't is now committed to unilateralism. 2. European concentration and consolidation will move forward and it will broaden. 3. China, Korea, and Japan will move closer together,but less so than Europe. 4. Nuclear proliferation in the South will expand. 5. US imperialism will threaten its legitimacy world wide and the number of friends and allies willdecline. 6. Porto Alegre (or, what it represents) will grow. 7. Davos (and what it represents) will increasingly split. 8. The US may soon start regretting the Iraw war.THE
ANARCHIC TRANSITION TODAY We are in a period of a transition out of the world-capitalist economy. The US as a declining hegemonic power does not control this process, however. It has a number of possible outcomes. What will eventually happen will be determined by the action of real people in their daily struggles.
End
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com