Ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now....

Iraq may have stabilized and may have a legitimate government. The elephants now in government will point to that as proof of their success. George W Bush was right, they will say.

They will neglect to point out the years of pain and suffering and death brought about by their "policy". Freedom and democracy was all worth it, they will say. As if they could have predicted what the Iraqi people may have done or would have done once Saddam had died?

But that the way the elephants think. When the sun comes up tomorrow, they will act like the rooster that crowed just before sunrise. It was because the rooster crowed that the sun rose. False Christians with false hopes and false dreams. And, if it doesn't turn out for the better, it is always someone else's fault. A very sickening quality of the present elephants in power.

... the United States as we know it today will most likely have collapsed under the crushing burden of its military and economic overextention. We will no longer be a "superpower", but merely one nation in the world among many. I don't even think we'll be in the driver's seat anymore -- that will be the European Union, and we will follow their lead in most global matters.

The people probably had no idea that was what they were voting for in the last election, but that may very well be the case. It will be very difficult to recover from 4 more years of Bush and the radicals, regardless of how resilient our country has been in the past.

I would like to see the European Union in control instead of US, with out fundamentalist, theocratic, Christian rapurists in control. They wouldn't push for a worldwide Christian theocracy; they wouldn't neglect the entire ecosystem upon which all humans depend for the sake of corporate profit; and they wouldn't start unnecessary wars for for that same corporate profit.

...the EU needs to start spending a lot more money on defense. The only reason the US is in the driver seat today is because of the undisputed superiority of its military and the size of its economy. If current economic trends continue and if the EU continues to lag in defense spending, the leader of the world will be China, not the EU.

China is far from being a global military power, let alone an economic one. While it is on the rise economically, and may even overtake Japan as the major player in the region, it still has a long way to go. While it has experienced exponential economic growth in the cities in recent years, its rural areas are still crushed by poverty. Also, it is experiencing EXTREME pollution problems in its cities. Furthermore, its work force is still largely two-tiered, with the vast majority of the wealth going to a few entrepreneurs while everybody else is stuck in poverty wages (albeit better than the life outside of the cities). It doesn't have a great deal of technological innovation, with most of its industries built on ideas taken from other industrialized nations. China also needs access to the global energy markets to continue its economic expansion, and it is nowhere close to obtaining the military power needed to control those supplies as the US currently does.

Power in the world is wielded economically today, not militarily. The United States is currently attempting to perpetuate a hegemony that no longer exists. Many global industrial standards that historically have been set by the US are on the verge of being set by the EU (see The Nation, "New Power for Old Europe"). Furthermore, there is not a single nation in the past century that has successfully expanded its power through military means. US power was brought about primarily through an increase in manufacturing share after WWII, as the rest of the industrialized world was largely in ruins -- military expansion was more of a side benefit of this, rather than a cause.

China won't seriously aggress against other nearby nations -- even Taiwan -- because it realizes that its bright future lies not in making war, but in maintaining beneficial relationships with other nations in the East Asian sphere. The EU won't build up a serious military force, because it learned its lesson regarding military adventurism from the second world war -- and it will still be an extremely important global player. The US, meanwhile, will be dragged down by its involvement in Iraq coupled with crushing fiscal and trade deficits, as the rest of the world watches it flailing about.

If you haven't heard of it, I'd seriously suggest you check out the book After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd. It discusses many of these concepts in great detail. What is impressive about Todd is that he is not an American, but a Frenchman, so his POV is somewhat detached from typical Americentrism -- and he also authored a book in the mid-to-late 1970's predicting the inevitable demise of the USSR due to many emerging cultural demographics at a time in which many establishment thinkers were saying it was on the rise.

You say that China is on the rise economically and may soon overtake Japan. Given that Japan has the second largest economy in the world, how does that not make China a major economic force?

If we do, then the economy of the EU dwarfs that of Japan, and even surpasses that of the United States. Furthermore, there are a lot of gaping holes in China's economy -- most notably in the area of technological expertise and extreme gaps of wealth -- that must be addressed before it can be considered relatively stable and an engine in its own right.

I didn't say that China wouldn't be a major economic force, either -- I said they had a long way to go before becoming a major military force. (Or, if I didn't actually say it, that's what I meant.) I'm a believer in the theory that the time of superpowers has come and gone, and now you will see regional blocs form, in which countries may slightly compete against each other, but will more likely cooperate in order to compete against other blocs. There will be a North American bloc, led by the US and Canada; an EU bloc, led largely by France and Germany; a South American bloc, led by Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela (with its significant oil wealth); and a Pacific Rim bloc, with the major players being Japan, China, S. Korea and Taiwan. The biggest wild card I see in all of this is Russia, because it has tremendous natural resources and the capacity to be largely self-sufficient. Russia will likely be an ally of both the EU and Pacific Rim, especially as a major supplier of energy needs (due to the continuing instability in the Middle East).

The EU will never be a unified political or diplomatic force--its far too divided. Just look at the division its members suffered over the Iraq war. If Europe cannot present a unified front over an issue as cut and dried as the Iraq war, how can you expect it to present a unified front on more complex issues in the future? Face it, the EU is nothing more than an economic co-operation zone, nothing more. When it comes to global issues, the "EU" is silent and the individual nations that make it up do the talking.

I agree with you completely on political and diplomatic force -- the EU is still a hodgepodge of countries with different interests. However, I think you're minimizing the effect that the EU will have on a global stage, and influencing global standards.

The Nation ran an excellent article regarding increasing EU power titled New Power for Old Europe. In it, the author discusses how the EU is coming to be the global standard on many industry practices. The primary example he holds up is the looming implementation of new EU standards governing the chemical industry. Since the 1970's, the global standard has been the US standard, which favors industry because it allows the release of new products that can only be pulled if they show over time to cause a health hazard. The proposed EU standard is more of a precautionary one, which places the onus on industry to prove that its new product will not be a health or environmental hazard. Due to the economic power wielded by the EU, this standard will likely become the global standard, forcing US companies to adjust in order to play on the global stage. This is just one industry, but it highlights the extent of this newfound global strength through economic cooperation. In light of factors such as this, I think you grossly understate matters when you refer to the EU as nothing more than an "economic cooperation zone". That's where I disagree slightly.

about China's discovery of oil within their territory. I don't think of China necessarily as being the aggressor militarily or gaining power through such means. I don't pretend to know that much about it but I'm learning. Thom Hartmann's book 'The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight' has almost an entire chapter devoted to China and her efforts to survive through the potential economic meltdown the world will experience when the age of cheap oil is over. After the Empire sounds like a great book. I'll check it out.

Irate: Who is the woman in your pic? Am I supposed to recognize her?

In 15 years, I will be 53. ARGHH! But I still plan on being a little hottie. :)

Let's see . . . In 15 years Hillary will be ex-President. And maybe we won't care anymore why Brad and Jen broke up. And maybe the Orioles can say they've been to the World Series again.

She's an Indian author and social activist. She is one of the most caring, beautiful and brilliant human beings on the face of the earth.

If you do an internet search for her, you'll be certain to discover many of her essays. She's an unflinching opponent of imperialism, corporate takeover of the planet, and infringing on the rights of people anywhere.

Never heard of her. Thanks for the info. I thought she must be a model or actress because she is so beautiful. She really is very striking. Does she get considered for her writing, or is she a writer the way Anna Kournakova is a tennis player?

I think she's judged for her writing. She's unbelievably committed and passionate about furthering social justice. Her political stances against the powers-that-be have done little to further he own celebrity, which I believe she cares nothing about.

The fact that you even put her and Anna Kournakova into the same category convinces me that you know nothing about her. I seriously urge you to read some of her essays.

You don't have to criticize me for not knowing her. I told you right up front that I had never heard of her. Sorry to be so socially unaware. And I was not comparing her to Anna. I was just asking whether she was respected for her writing or whether she was just a pretty face who got popular based on that. You know, knowledge and education should never be used as a bludgeon to make someone feel dumb.

You said yourself that you had never heard of her. I apologize for the insult -- it was completely unintentional.

Thanks for apologizing! No offense. I can be a little sensitive sometimes, but then again, I am a Democrat. :) Sorry if I overreacted. I hate not knowing things so maybe I felt a little stupid by not knowing her in the first place. Not your fault. I need to be better informed. I have a lot of knowledge in my job, but when it comes to other parts of the world, my education may be lacking. But I do love Indian food! I hate the sitar, though. Sounds like screeching to me.

We should rank the world powers by who has the best food. Kind of like an Iron Chef competition for the world. I would put Thai food first. Korean second. Indian third. Maybe Middle Eastern 4th, if it's still legal to eat at a Persian restaurant that is. :) China is way down on my list except for curried rice noodles which are really Singapore anyway.

http://www.democracynow.org/static/Arundhati_Trans.shtml

She has one of the most eloquent voices I've ever heard.

TIDE? OR IVORY SNOW?
Public Power in the Age of Empire


snip

In the United States, on the other hand, the blurring of the distinction between sarkar and public has penetrated far deeper into society. This could be a sign of a robust democracy, but unfortunately, it's a little more complicated and less pretty than that. Among other things, it has to do with the elaborate web of paranoia generated by the U.S. sarkar and spun out by the corporate media and Hollywood. Ordinary Americans have been manipulated into imagining they are a people under siege whose sole refuge and protector is their government. If it isn't the Communists, it's al-Qaeda. If it isn't Cuba. it's Nicaragua. As a result, this, the most powerful nation in the world - with its unmatchable arsenal of weapons, its history of having waged and sponsored endless wars, and the only nation in history to have actually used nuclear bombs - is peopled by a terrified citizenry, jumping at shadows. A people bonded to the state not by social services, or public health care, or employment guarantees, but by fear.

This synthetically manufactured fear is used to gain public sanction for further acts of aggression. And so it goes, building into a spiral of self-fulfilling hysteria, now formally calibrated by the U.S government's Amazing Technicolored Terror Alerts: fuchsia, turquoise, salmon pink.



To outside observers, this merging of sarkar and public in the United States sometimes makes it hard to separate the actions of the U.S. government from the American people. It is this confusion that fuels anti-Americanism in the world. Anti-Americanism is then seized upon and amplified by the U.S. government and its faithful media outlets. You know the routine: "Why do they hate us? They hate our freedoms" . . . etc. . . . etc. This enhances the sense of isolation among American people and makes the embrace between sarkar and public even more intimate. Like Red Riding Hood looking for a cuddle in the wolf's bed.

Using the threat of an external enemy to rally people behind you is a tired old horse, which politicians have ridden into power for centuries. But could it be that ordinary people are fed up of that poor old horse and are looking for something different? There's an old Hindi film song that goes yeh public hai, yeh sab jaanti hai (the public, she knows it all). Wouldn't it be lovely if the song were right and the politicians wrong?

more

They've been planning for it very determinedly.

It is a hallmark of religious belief that all good flows from the allfrighty and all ill has nothing to do with it. Conservatism is a religious belief: it is correct by definition, and all other beliefs are wrong. Conservatism and religion are inherently intolerent, monomaniacal and self-centered, with the attendant air of privilege that the superior grant themselves.

Reagan didn't bring down the Soviet Union, he merely indebted his country piling ingots of gold on a dying old man; it was nothing but grandstanding.

and very true. Truth is so valuable nowadays.

if a democratic rooster crows just before sunrise, they would claim his crowing in the dark proves he was engaged in henky-penky and he stopping crowing BECAUSE the sun rose.

It may be stabilized, but only under a theocracy.

It took 33 years for the fiasco which was the British "solution" to bear fruit, however poisoned.