Unimperialism?
by
George Szamuely
New York Press

12/19/00

"Praise be, the age of cynical Western interventionism may be past. Yesterday saw the final election (or selection) of a new United States President, George W. Bush. The event could mean little or it could mean much. That is always the case when an empire changes hands… Let us be optimistic." Thus spoke Simon Jenkins writing in the Times of London last week.

Jenkins is a sensible fellow, and while his optimism is understandable it may also be a little premature. To be sure, during the campaign Bush went out of his way to avoid vacuous Albrightian bombast: "I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say ‘this is the way it’s got to be.’ I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you."

Americans have not heard refreshingly unimperial talk like this in decades. Bush also called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Balkans. Yet when a spluttering Secretary-General of NATO – the fat and repulsive Lord Robertson – intervened outrageously in the election and confronted Bush about his intentions in the Balkans, the Republican immediately backed down. "NATO diplomats were left with the impression," The New York Times purred, "that, if he is elected, Mr. Bush is prepared to move slowly on the issue of Balkan peacekeeping to avoid any early political crises with NATO. Specifically, Lord Robertson said he had been assured that ‘there will be no unilateral action taken in relation to peacekeeping forces.’" Nor was it reassuring that in his first major interview following the election, on CBS’ 60 Minutes II, Bush declared "The principal threat facing America is isolationism…America can’t go it alone."

Really? Principal threat? "Isolationism" is a tired cliche, long devoid of any real meaning. Its only purpose is to silence critics of America’s imperial agenda.

Whether Bush was sincere during the campaign or merely courting the Buchananite vote matters very little now. Already he is coming under enormous pressure from Washington think tanks, Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal types, the military-industrial complex, corporate lobbyists, international aid organizations, and former government officials now working as foreign agents to make sure U.S. foreign policy remains as interventionist as ever. George W. wants bipartisanship. He will not get it on tax cuts, privatizing Social Security or education vouchers. But he could get it on foreign policy. He can satisfy the "neoconservatives" by bombing the "rogue states"; mainstream Republicans by aggressively promoting U.S. commercial interests; and liberals by championing "humanitarian intervention."

Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, is a charming and attractive woman. Colin Powell, the secretary of State, is clearly no demented Madeleine Albright. Yet it is hard to believe that either has the intellectual capability to take on the likes of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle, who will most probably call the shots in a Bush administration. Rice because she is, perhaps, too nice. Powell, because his famous "doctrine" about using massive force, getting involved only where national interests are at stake and having an "exit strategy" says nothing about what America’s "national interests" really are. Powell has no idea. He is a military man who follows orders.

Wolfowitz and Perle, on the other hand, do have a pretty good idea. America should be involved everywhere and at all times to ensure its global hegemony. Wolfowitz heads the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. His most famous foreign policy contribution was the 1992 memorandum, written when he was undersecretary of policy at the Pentagon, in which he argued that the United States had to maintain global military supremacy "to thwart the emergence of a rival superpower in Europe, Asia or the former Soviet Union." The United States had to "establish and protect a new order" to discourage "advanced industrial nations" from "challenging our leadership" while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." He envisaged going to war with Russia if it threatened Poland or the Baltic states. Wolfowitz’s belligerent, indeed nearly insane, vision caused uproar and was swiftly withdrawn.

But Wolfowitz has been nothing if not faithful to his beliefs ever since. He was an early advocate of expanding NATO. He frets obsessively about the rise of China. In a 1997 speech he likened China to Imperial Germany. He regularly warns of the military threat posed by Iran. In May 1998 he and Richard Perle signed an open letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Wolfowitz also urged the bombing of Serbia long before Clinton got around to it.

The agenda today will unquestionably be to thwart the emergence of Europe as a world power rivaling the United States. Since NATO serves no other purpose now than to ensure European subordination to the U.S., the policy will be to prevent the European rapid reaction force from getting off the ground.

Wolfowitz will seek to frustrate Europe at every turn. Whose lead will Bush follow? One clue: the Kosovo Albanians do not seem worried about the change in Washington. Bujar Dugolli, a member of the ruling council of the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK), says: "The Americans have spent too much money in Kosovo to pull out now." An AFP story nicely adds: "The main U.S. military base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel, is the largest constructed by the United States since the Vietnam war. Contractors employed to build some of its facilities told AFP they had been told it had to last for at least 15 years."

Read George Szamuely's Antiwar.com Exclusive Column

Archived Columns by George Szamuely from the New York Press

Unimperialism?
12/19/00

Community Service
12/5/00

GOP Oblivion
11/21/00

What Gridlock?
11/14/00

Hard Times Coming
11/7/00

The Anti-Gore
11/1/00

Who’s to Blame?
10/17/00

Milosevic Robbed
10/10/00

He Dared To Differ
10/3/00

Closed Ballots
9/19/00

Kicking Dick
9/5/00

Whore on Drugs
8/29/00

Soros' World
8/22/00

The Good Lieberman
8/15/00

Nader-Buchanan 2000
8/8/00

W's Oil Warriors
8/1/00

Rupert's Hillary
7/25/00

The Veep's No VIP
7/18/00

Hollow Mexico
7/11/00

Death of Innocents
6/27/00

NATO's Home Free
6/20/00

Poll Attacks
6/13/00

Israel's Powerful Friends
6/6/00

Defense Against What?
5/30/00

God Bless Rehnquist!
5/23/00

Long, Hillary Summer
5/16/00

Communicating Power
5/9/00

Law as Ordered
5/2/00

What Threat?
4/25/00

Peculiar Yet Brave
4/18/00

Closed to Debate
4/11/00

Arrogance of Power
4/4/00

Prison Love
3/28/00

Gore's Oil
3/21/00

Rough Justice
3/14/00

Race Race
3/7/00

Al the Coward
2/29/00

Intruder Alert
2/22/00

McCain's Money
2/15/00

Haider Seek
2/13/00

Out of Africa
2/1/00

Prosecute NATO
1/25/00

Villain or Victim?
1/11/00

Intervention, Immigration, and Internment
1/5/00

Home-Grown Terrorism
12/28/99

Who Benefits?
12/21/99

Laws of Return
12/14/99

Embassy Row
12/7/99

Selling Snake Oil
11/30/99

Chinese Puzzle
11/23/99

That Was No Lady, That Was the Times
11/16/99

The Red Tide Turning?
11/9/99

Pat & The Pod
11/2/99

United Fundamentalist States
10/26/99

Let Them All Have Nukes!
10/19/99

Liar, Liar
10/5/99

Gangster Nations
9/21/99

Puerto Rico Libre – and Good Riddance
9/14/99

Leave China Alone
9/2/99

A World Safe for Kleptocracy
7/7/99

Proud To Be Un-American
6/23/99

All articles reprinted with permission from the New York Press

 

Back to Antiwar.com Home Page | Contact Us