http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34863.htm
And Then There Was One
Imperial Gigantism and the Decline of Planet Earth
By Tom Engelhardt
May 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - It stretched from the
Caspian to the Baltic Sea, from the middle of Europe to the Kurile
Islands in the Pacific, from Siberia to Central Asia. Its nuclear
arsenal held 45,000 warheads, and its military had five million troops
under arms. There had been nothing like it in Eurasia since the Mongols
conquered China, took parts of Central Asia and the Iranian plateau, and
rode into the Middle East, looting Baghdad. Yet when the Soviet Union
collapsed in December 1991, by far the poorer, weaker imperial power
disappeared.
And then there was one. There had never been such a moment: a single
nation astride the globe without a competitor in sight. There wasn't
even a name for such a state (or state of mind). "Superpower" had
already been used when there were two of them. "Hyperpower" was tried
briefly but didn't stick. "Sole superpower" stood in for a while but
didn't satisfy. "Great Power," once the zenith of appellations, was by
then a lesser phrase, left over from the centuries when various European
nations and Japan were expanding their empires. Some started speaking
about a "unipolar" world in which all roads led... well, to Washington.
To this day, we've never quite taken in that moment when Soviet imperial
rot unexpectedly -- above all, to Washington -- became imperial
crash-and-burn. Left standing, the Cold War's victor seemed, then, like
an empire of everything under the sun. It was as if humanity had always
been traveling toward this spot. It seemed like the end of the line.
The Last Empire?
After the rise and fall of the Assyrians and the Romans, the Persians,
the Chinese, the Mongols, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the
French, the English, the Germans, and the Japanese, some process seemed
over. The United States was dominant in a previously unimaginable way
-- except in Hollywood films where villains cackled about their evil
plans to dominate the world.
As a start, the U.S. was an empire of global capital. With the fall of
Soviet-style communism (and the transformation of a communist regime in
China into a crew of authoritarian "capitalist roaders"), there was no
other model for how to do anything, economically speaking. There was
Washington's way -- and that of the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank (both controlled by Washington) -- or there was the highway,
and the Soviet Union had already made it all too clear where that led:
to obsolescence and ruin.
In addition, the U.S. had unprecedented military power. By the time the
Soviet Union began to totter, America's leaders had for nearly a decade
been consciously using "the arms race" to spend its opponent into an
early grave. And here was the curious thing after centuries of arms
races: when there was no one left to race, the U.S. continued an arms
race of one.
In the years that followed, it would outpace all other countries or
combinations of countries in military spending by staggering amounts.
It housed the world's most powerful weapons makers, was technologically
light years ahead of any other state, and was continuing to develop
future weaponry for 2020, 2040, 2060, even as it established a near
monopoly on the global arms trade (and so, control over who would be
well-armed and who wouldn't).
It had an empire of bases abroad, more than 1,000 of them spanning the
globe, also an unprecedented phenomenon. And it was culturally
dominant, again in a way that made comparisons with other moments
ludicrous. Like American weapons makers producing things that went boom
in the night for an international audience, Hollywood's action and
fantasy films took the world by storm. From those movies to the golden
arches, the swoosh, and the personal computer, there was no other
culture that could come close to claiming such a global cachet.
The key non-U.S. economic powerhouses of the moment -- Europe and Japan
-- maintained militaries dependent on Washington, had U.S. bases
littering their territories, and continued to nestle under Washington's
"nuclear umbrella." No wonder that, in the U.S., the post-Soviet moment
was soon proclaimed "the end of history," and the victory of "liberal
democracy" or "freedom" was celebrated as if there really were no
tomorrow, except more of what today had to offer.
No wonder that, in the new century, neocons and supporting pundits would
begin to claim that the British and Roman empires had been second-raters
by comparison. No wonder that key figures in and around the George W.
Bush administration dreamed of establishing a Pax Americana in the
Greater Middle East and possibly over the globe itself (as well as a Pax
Republicana at home). They imagined that they might actually prevent
another competitor or bloc of competitors from arising to challenge
American power. Ever.
No wonder they had remarkably few hesitations about launching their
incomparably powerful military on wars of choice in the Greater Middle
East. What could possibly go wrong? What could stand in the way of the
greatest power history had ever seen?
Assessing the Imperial Moment, Twenty-First-Century-Style
Almost a quarter of a century after the Soviet Union disappeared, what's
remarkable is how much -- and how little -- has changed.
On the how-much front: Washington's dreams of military glory ran aground
with remarkable speed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then, in 2007, the
transcendent empire of capital came close to imploding as well, as a
unipolar financial disaster spread across the planet. It led people to
begin to wonder whether the globe's greatest power might not, in fact,
be too big to fail, and we were suddenly -- so everyone said -- plunged
into a "multipolar world."
Meanwhile, the Greater Middle East descended into protest, rebellion,
civil war, and chaos without a Pax Americana in sight, as a
Washington-controlled Cold War system in the region shuddered without
(yet) collapsing. The ability of Washington to impose its will on the
planet looked ever more like the wildest of fantasies, while every sign,
including the hemorrhaging of national treasure into losing
trillion-dollar wars, reflected not ascendancy but possible decline.
And yet, in the how-little category: the Europeans and Japanese remained
nestled under that American "umbrella," their territories still filled
with U.S. bases. In the Euro Zone, governments continued to cut back on
their investments in both NATO and their own militaries. Russia
remained a country with a sizeable nuclear arsenal and a reduced but
still large military. Yet it showed no signs of "superpower"
pretensions. Other regional powers challenged unipolarity economically
-- Turkey and Brazil, to name two -- but not militarily, and none showed
an urge either singly or in blocs to compete in an imperial sense with
the U.S.
Washington's enemies in the world remained remarkably modest-sized
(though blown to enormous proportions in the American media
echo-chamber). They included a couple of rickety regional powers (Iran
and North Korea), a minority insurgency or two, and relatively small
groups of Islamist "terrorists." Otherwise, as one gauge of power on
the planet, no more than a handful of other countries had even a handful
of military bases outside their territory.
Under the circumstances, nothing could have been stranger than this: in
its moment of total ascendancy, the Earth's sole superpower with a
military of staggering destructive potential and technological
sophistication couldn't win a war against minimally armed guerillas.
Even more strikingly, despite having no serious opponents anywhere, it
seemed not on the rise but on the decline, its infrastructure rotting
out, its populace economically depressed, its wealth ever more unequally
divided, its Congress seemingly beyond repair, while the great sucking
sound that could be heard was money and power heading toward the
national security state. Sooner or later, all empires fall, but this
moment was proving curious indeed.
And then, of course, there was China. On the planet that humanity has
inhabited these last several thousand years, can there be any question
that China would have been the obvious pick to challenge, sooner or
later, the dominion of the reigning great power of the moment?
Estimates are that it will surpass the U.S. as the globe's number one
economy by perhaps 2030.
Right now, the Obama administration seems to be working on just that
assumption. With its well-publicized "pivot" (or "rebalancing") to
Asia, it has been moving to "contain" what it fears might be the next
great power. However, while the Chinese are indeed expanding their
military and challenging their neighbors in the waters of the Pacific,
there is no sign that the country's leadership is ready to embark on
anything like a global challenge to the U.S., nor that it could do so in
any conceivable future. Its domestic problems, from pollution to
unrest, remain staggering enough that it's hard to imagine a China not
absorbed with domestic issues through 2030 and beyond.
And Then There Was One (Planet)
Militarily, culturally, and even to some extent economically, the U.S.
remains surprisingly alone on planet Earth in imperial terms, even if
little has worked out as planned in Washington. The story of the years
since the Soviet Union fell may prove to be a tale of how American
domination and decline went hand-in-hand, with the decline part of the
equation being strikingly self-generated.
And yet here's a genuine, even confounding, possibility: that moment of
"unipolarity" in the 1990s may really have been the end point of history
as human beings had known it for millennia -- the history, that is, of
the rise and fall of empires. Could the United States actually be the
last empire? Is it possible that there will be no successor because
something has profoundly changed in the realm of empire building? One
thing is increasingly clear: whatever the state of imperial America,
something significantly more crucial to the fate of humanity (and of
empires) is in decline. I'm talking, of course, about the planet itself.
The present capitalist model (the only one available) for a rising
power, whether China, India, or Brazil, is also a model for planetary
decline, possibly of a precipitous nature. The very definition of
success -- more middle-class consumers, more car owners, more shoppers,
which means more energy used, more fossil fuels burned, more greenhouse
gases entering the atmosphere -- is also, as it never would have been
before, the definition of failure. The greater the "success," the more
intense the droughts, the stronger the storms, the more extreme the
weather, the higher the rise in sea levels, the hotter the temperatures,
the greater the chaos in low-lying or tropical lands, the more profound
the failure. The question is: Will this put an end to the previous
patterns of history, including the until-now-predictable rise of the
next great power, the next empire? On a devolving planet, is it even
possible to imagine the next stage in imperial gigantism?
Every factor that would normally lead toward "greatness" now also leads
toward global decline. This process -- which couldn't be more unfair to
countries having their industrial and consumer revolutions late -- gives
a new meaning to the phrase "disaster capitalism."
Take the Chinese, whose leaders, on leaving the Maoist model behind, did
the most natural thing in the world at the time: they patterned their
future economy on the United States -- on, that is, success as it was
then defined. Despite both traditional and revolutionary communal
traditions, for instance, they decided that to be a power in the world,
you needed to make the car (which meant the individual driver) a pillar
of any future state-capitalist China. If it worked for the U.S., it
would work for them, and in the short run, it worked like a dream, a
capitalist miracle -- and China rose.
It was, however, also a formula for massive pollution, environmental
degradation, and the pouring of ever more fossil fuels into the
atmosphere in record amounts. And it's not just China. It doesn't
matter whether you're talking about that country's ravenous energy use,
including its possible future "carbon bombs," or the potential for
American decline to be halted by new extreme methods of producing energy
(fracking, tar-sands extraction, deep-water drilling). Such methods,
however much they hurt local environments, might indeed turn the U.S.
into a "new Saudi Arabia." Yet that, in turn, would only contribute
further to the degradation of the planet, to decline on an ever-larger
scale.
What if, in the twenty-first century, going up means declining? What if
the unipolar moment turns out to be a planetary moment in which
previously distinct imperial events -- the rise and fall of empires --
fuse into a single disastrous system?
What if the story of our times is this: And then there was one planet,
and it was going down.
--
Robert Luis Rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Meet the People video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c
Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4
The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
