This US unilateral
policy
It is impossible to discuss a future
role of the United States of America in the world without understanding the
global processes that have been taken place in the world over the last several
years. September 11, without doubt, was a break point event in these
processes. First, it showed people a danger of an international terrorism.
Second, the event brought about a confrontation between two different
viewpoints on the development of world politics. On the one hand, politicians
from many countries believe that any active actions to preserve world order
must be organized only by United Nations. On the other hand, the United States is pushing forward its aggressive
unilateral policy that is based only on Washington’s (sometimes biased)
understanding of the current international situation.
This US strategy was clearly
demonstrated in Iraq. Now, after two and a half years of the war, the
question must be asked if this policy achieved its goals. Did it bring a peace
and stabilization in the post Sadam country? Yes, the military operation itself
was a success. Actually, it was difficult to imagine any other result of that
war considering that the conflict was between a mighty US and Iraq, a third
level military power. Despite the military successes, this strategy did not
produce desirable results. The
USA cannot stabilize the situation, and the Iraqis continue to organize attacks
against the US and coalition forces.
May be the USA had another reason to
start the war? Some people (in Russia, anyway) believe that a real goal of US
policy in the Middle East is to take under control a so-called the world’s hydrocarbon
ellipse. It is obvious, that a power controlling that region would
become a master of the world in this century. Now, the USA is in much less
favorable economical position than some other countries (potential America’s
enemies). So, the US efforts to
extend its influence over that area are an attempt to liquidate this imbalance
once and for all.
But this goal could hardly be
achieved by military means. If the USA decided to occupy some other
states in that area, they would surely face a guerrilla resistance, like in
Iraq and Afganistan. History proved that the only way to suppress insurgency is
a policy of mass terror, and I doubt that America will ever use it. The
attempts to organize puppet democratic governments will fail too. Such regimes will be hated by the
general population and overthrown as soon as US army leaves the country.
By the way, why did Bush’s
administration decide to occupy a sovereign country to fight international
terrorism? What is the connection between an organized group of
criminals and an independent state? Why not occupy Italy to fight the Italian
Mafia?
I think that a Washington’s current
unilateral policy is useless and even dangerous. It is increased a
general instability in the World. Iraq became a place that attracts terrorism
from all over the globe. The wave of anti-Americanism grew up in the world,
even in Western Europe, a traditional ally of the United States. The danger of
a terrorist attack on the territory of the United States is even higher than
itwas before the Iraq war. It
seems that the only purpose of US actions is to remain the world’s single
superpower by any means.
I believe that the USA will not be
able to continue its unilateral policy anymore because it goes against
objective processes in the world economy and international relations. First
of these processes is globalization that does make the world more and more
interconnected and interdependent place. Another factor is a steady development
of a multipolar world. I doubt that China would joint a unipolar structure and
be obedient to US decisions. The EU would become another world’s center of
power. The political regimes in European countries are very close to American,
so any military confrontations are very unlikely at this point. But an economical
competition would be intense. I
would say that the other war, between the euro and the dollar, is already on,
and the dollar is loosing so far.
There is another potential threat to
the USA. Only a few years ago, a dollar was almost equivalent to gold. People
and businesses all over the world tried to keep their savings in dollars. A
huge amount of American currency was accumulated in foreign countries. Now,
when a dollar is getting cheaper, many try to get rid of it and buy euros. What
would happen if all this dollar cash came back to the USA? India, Japan, and
Russia will probably also try to make their influence on the world politics
comparable with their economical potential.
Also, it is possible that the USA
will return to the policy of partial isolationism to concentrate on its own
problems. First, US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. This action
will greatly destabilize the situation in the Middle East, and Iraq, probably,
will become a new center of Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic radicals will
increase their activity and the situation will become very dangerous for many
countries, but not for the USA. The terrorists simply could not reach the
United States. It will be a real danger for the EU and Russia, American
adversaries. In Russia the war could spread from Chechnya to the whole Caucasus
region. In European countries the danger of terrorist acts would increase
dramatically. Of course it
would be terrible act (an immediate withdrawing of the troops) from a moral
point of view, but the States have already shown several times that they care
only about their own interests.
Money and troops released after the
war would be used to protect borders. The threat of terrorist attack
using a weapon of mass distraction is real, and the open boarders are the
easiest way to get in the States. Boarders should be guarded not by overweight
volunteers gathering around an American flag, but by elite troops. Some funds
would be used to improve security services; I think they need more informers.
The terrorists can strike only from inside of the United States. That is why the only way to fight
them is to put everything in order in your own country.
In conclusion, no one can say how
the world will look like even in the nearest future; we can only predict. One
thing is clear, however, the future of the country directly depends on today’s
policy.