21.11.2005The struggle to rule over the world and the American society
The problem to carry out UN reforms has become the most important and at the same time problematic reality in today’s international relations.
The latter became more urgent when the United States began realizing unilateral actions directed “to develop freedom and democracy and to ensure and fortify global security”, the most obvious and challenging manifestation of which was the US army invasion to Iraq.
Thus there is a clash of two mutually exclusive ideas concerning to the new global system: “unipolar”, that’s to say American, or “multipolar” government? If more precisely the latter is a collective responsibility the supporters of which are all the countries except the US and its close ally countries.
Hereby the US leaves UN out of account, which was expressed by a fact that as the American representative to UN was nominated a person apparently despising that organization.
Certainly the policy adopted by George W. Bush administration to UN became more cautious after the EU leading countries-German and France, China, Russia, India, a few Islamic countries strictly resisted the US violation of the norms of international rights by invading Iraq.
However, in spite of the fact the US continues to carry out its policy directed to strengthen its global leadership and its unilateral government, the essential part of which is to deprive UN from authority and have it as a tool, which in all probability has became an easer task because of the problems inside EU.
In this case the US actively uses such a powerful arsenal as mass media, which is under its direct control, for persuading the international community that UN have had its day; it’s a weak and motionless, bureaucratized and corrupted organization.
Washington realizes it with great success, therefore the recently published expert conclusion by “High level group” under the UN secretary general’s leadership was a real surprise; according to the latter, in spite of many shortcomings in the organization’s activities, nevertheless “UN success in liquidating serious dangers threatening the world peace and security are much more significant then considered”.
Let’s point out that the members of that group are four ex-prime ministers, the chairman of International crisis group who is considered to be a great authority within international community, ex-foreign ministers of different countries, high-ranking diplomats and, which is more important to stress up, National security adviser under President George H. W. Bush, general Brent Scowcroft.
Therefore, making use of the opportunities available for it, UN tries to resist and struggles to attach importance to its role and effect reforms furthering the formation of collective governing system.
By the time the struggle becomes more and more heated, thus one of the up-to-date serious questions is how the international governing system will be or, in a more comprehensive formulation, how will look the new world order corresponding to new realities?
In this sense the ongoing processes within the US society are very important as the political line of the present American administration considerably depends on the orientations of American citizens.
From the standpoint of analyzing the society’s moods and tendencies it is interesting that only now the subject of discussion in the wide circles of society flowing from American intellectual circles is the US inclination, since 1990s, to use the world’s most powerful military force under the name of “preventive military intervention”.
Articles criticizing the Iraqi war and the US policy are published one after another. Though the simple Americans are not concerned with such problems they begin to realize that the situation in Iraq and Middle East develops in a very dangerous direction.
Besides, very few people dared to express their critical idea concerning to American policy towards Iran, but the situation has drastically changed since.
It is well expressed in the articles published in a number of newspapers, journals and monographs which condemn Bush in using double or multy standard policy: for example, it is mentioned that the American government simultaneously exerts tough pressure on Iran aiming to prevent nuclear program, concludes a treaty on supporting India in nuclear programs as the US needs an ally country in the Middle East developments and at the same time carries out a very cautious policy towards the nuclear state Northern Korea.
It is clear that at present when Iraq remains out of control and the resistance takes a threatening turn the claims of the president Bush that “America will not change its path and will give freedom to Iraq” is criticized even by the analysts and respected politicians who before the war considered that “preventive strategy is right” and “the absolute humanitarian intervention is justified”.
If we add the consequences of the devastating “Katrina” hurricane and the criticizing of the Bush administration for inadequate steps to all these than it will become clear the results of the recently published gallup poll which for the firs time at the president Bush presidency recorded that his activities have more adversaries (53%) then supporters (42,2%).
Zbignew Brzezinski immediately responded to these results publishing an article in “The Los Angeles Times”, which begins with the famous words of Arnold Toynbee that “the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft””.
Z. Brzezinski, whose opinion has always been prevailing in American foreign policy and public opinion forming, considers that the US last misfortunes are connected with the decisions and actions of “the narrow circle of the country’s top leaders”. However the problem is not possible to explain by subjective reasons.
The matter is that the American society has changed a lot during the last years. As the Americans themselves point out, little by little their nation becomes “the most militarized one among democratic societies”.
A number of famous political analytics condemn the American military leadership that the country becomes more and more militarized.
This is sure to be right, but it is only one face of the problem.
After the end of the Cold war and the collapse of the “evil empire” an ideological vacuum appeared (the bipolar world order by itself dictates the formation of the ideology on Manichean principle, which is based on the idea of endless and unyielding struggle between the God and the Devil, good and evil, consequently “the one who is not with the God is the Devil’s servant”. Of course each part declares itself to be the God. Hence Ronald Reagan’s famous formulation of “the evil empire” which is one of the most important mytho-political elements of the Cold war period): many Americans have an impression that all the essential problems have been solved, the freedom has won and the democratic leader America will spread it all over the world.
However, very soon it became clear that for “spreading democracy” there is a need of such a mytho-ideological system which will strengthen this function by its myths and rituals, for that purpose one must turn to the oldest Mythologem in search of the heroes embodying the struggle between good an evil. It’s clear that while struggling against evil the simple citizens must adjust to some restrictions on their rights, which may gradually take a graver turn. It is also clear that for struggling against evil one must be armed very well. There is no doubt that only generals know how to struggle against evil and they know the exact place of the evil and suchlike simple things.
It seamed that at first Samuel Huntington’s theory on “clash of civilizations”, than the tragedy on September 11 would fulfill the above mentioned ideological gap. However the realities of the Iraqi war as well as the shocking scenes in Guantanamo and Abu Greib made the American society to withdraw to the traditional “peaceful port” for every simple American embodied in “out of harm’s way” ideology- isolationism.
The last one is still a tendency of course, but one thing is clear that “the struggle against terrorism” is not that mythologem, and “Usama Ben Laden” and “Al-Kaida” evil embodiments can not replace the myth about “evil empire” in people’s consciousness, there can’t be real excuses for militarizing the country and the society, reducing democracy and human rights, carrying out double standards.
At the same time it must be pointed out that the US considerably yields to the EU by its exporting and importing showings and China by its rate of growth in economy, it remains a very reach and powerful country with unprecedented dynamic and flexible economy and with a unique ability to produce high technologies.
Certainly sooner or later all the empires collapse and become a history. And it happens also because very often they don’t take into account one of the nature’s most important principles: the action (influence) gives birth to counteraction, the use of force- to return force. Counteraction comes out from the point the influence vector is directed. It means that the last years US political vector, reducing political rights and liberties inside and violating the other countries’ and societies’ rights and dignity outside, gives birth to the opposite direction acting counteractions.
However one can suppose that “the isolated” way of thinking, which has always been the Americans’ privilege, now will let as use the ocean as a “buffer” for saving time to shape a new mytho-policy.
In the presence of only one prevailing force in the world, it doesn’t matter how complicated and problematic it is, a unipolar government is inevitable. The problem is weather the leaders of American society will be so wise to govern more flexibly and disguised.
Return
Another materials of author
- Global confrontation and “the caricature war”[09.03.2006]