Just Peace Queensland

After the end of empire
The sun sets early on the American Century
The ‘American Century’ only began 60 years ago. But it seems already to be over, with the disaster of Iraq forcing some of the United States’ ruling elites to realise that its hegemony has been severely weakened. But nobody seems to know what to do next, or even how to behave

By Philip S Golub
Le Monde Diplomatique
Oct. 4, 2007

The disastrous outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a crisis in the power elite of the United States deeper than that resulting from defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago. Ironically, it is the very coalition of ultra-nationalists and neo-conservatives that coalesced in the 1970s, seeking to reverse the Vietnam syndrome, restore US power and revive “the will to victory”, that has caused the present crisis.

There has been no sustained popular mass protest as there was during the Vietnam war, probably because of the underclass sociology of the US’'s volunteer army and the fact that the war is being funded by foreign financial flows (although no one knows how long that can continue). However, at the elite level the war has fractured the national security establishment that has run the US for six decades. The unprecedented public critique in 2006 by several retired senior officers over the conduct of the war (1), plus recurrent signs of dissent in the intelligence agencies and the State Department, reflects a much wider trend in elite opinion and key state institutions.

Not all critics are as forthright as retired General William Odom, who tirelessly repeats that the invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history” (2), or Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’'s former chief of staff, who denounced a “blunder of historic proportions” and has recently suggested impeaching the president (3), or former National Security Council head Zbigniew Brzezinski who called the war and occupation a “historic, strategic and moral calamity” (4).

Most public critiques from within the institutions of state focus on the way the war and occupation have been mismanaged rather than the more fundamental issue of the invasion itself. Yet discord is wide and deep: government departments are trading blame, accusing each other of the “loss of Iraq” (5). In private, former senior officials express incandescent anger, denounce shadowy cabals and have deep contempt for the White House. A former official of the National Security Council compared the president and his staff to the Corleone mafia family inThe Godfather. A senior foreign policy expert said: “Due to an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt clique we are about to lose our hegemonic position in the Middle East and Gulf.” “The White House has broken the army and trampled its honour,” added a Republican senator and former Vietnam veteran.


No doves

None of these, nor any of the other institutional critics, could be considered doves: whatever their political affiliations (mostly Republican) or personal beliefs, they were – and some are still – guardians of US power, managers of the national security state, and sometimes central actors in covert and overt imperial interventions in the third world during the cold war and post-cold war. They were – and some are still – system managers of a self-perpetuating bureaucratic national security machine – first analysed by the sociologist C Wright Mills – whose function is the production and reproduction of power.

As a social group, these realists cannot be distinguished from the object of their criticism in terms of their willingness to use force or their historically demonstrated ruthlessness in achieving state aims. Nor can the cause of their dissent be attributed to conflicting convictions over ethics, norms and values (though this may be a motivating factor for some). It lies rather in the rational realisation that the war in Iraq has nearly “broken the US army” (6), weakened the national security state, and severely if not irreparably undermined “America’s global legitimacy” (7) – its ability to shape world preferences and set the global agenda. The most sophisticated expressions of dissent, such as Brzezinski’s, reflect the understanding that power is not reducible to the ability to coerce, and that, once lost, hegemonic legitimacy is hard to restore.

The signs of slippage are everywhere apparent: in Latin America, where US influence is at its lowest in decades; in East Asia, where the US has been obliged, reluctantly, to negotiate with North Korea and recognise China as an indispensable actor in regional security; in Europe, where US plans to install missile defence capabilities in Poland are being contested by Germany and other European Union states; in the Gulf, where longstanding allies such as Saudi Arabia are pursuing autonomous agendas that coincide only in part with US aims; and in the international institutions, the UN and the World Bank, where the US is no longer in a position to drive the agenda unaided.

Transnational opinion surveys show a consistent and nearly global pattern of defiance of US foreign policy as well as a more fundamental erosion in the attractiveness of the US: the narrative of the American dream has been submerged by images of a military leviathan disregarding world opinion and breaking the rules. World public opinion may not stop wars but it does count in subtler ways. Some of this slippage may be repairable under new leaders and with new and less aggressive policies. Yet it is hard to see how internal unity of purpose will be restored: it took decades to rebuild the shaken US armed forces after Vietnam and to define an elite and popular consensus on the uses of power. The mobilisation of nationalist sentiment to support foreign adventures will not be so easy after Iraq. Nor can one imagine a return to the status quo in world politics.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not the sole cause of the trends sketched. Rather, the war significantly accentuated all of them at a moment when larger centrifugal forces were already at work: the erosion and collapse of the Washington Consensus and the gradual rise of new gravitational centres, notably in Asia, were established trends when President George Bush went to war. Now, as the shift in the world economy towards Asia matures, the US is stuck in a conflict that is absorbing its total energies. History is moving on and the world is slipping, slowly but inexorably, out of US hands.


Destined to act as hegemon

For the US power elite this is deeply unsettling. Since the mid-20th century US leaders have thought of themselves as having a unique historic responsibility to lead and govern the globe. Sitting on top of the world since the 1940s, they have assumed that, like Great Britain in the 19th century, they were destined to act as hegemon – a dominant state having the will and the means to establish and maintain international order: peace and an open and expanding liberal world economy. In their reading of history it was Britain’s inability to sustain such a role and the US’s simultaneous unwillingness to take responsibility (isolationism) that created the conditions for the cycle of world wars and depression during the first half of the 20th century.

The corollary of this assumption is the circular argument that since order requires a dominant centre, the maintenance of order (or avoidance of chaos) requires the perpetuation of hegemony. This belief system, theorised in US academia in the 1970s as “hegemonic stability”, has underpinned US foreign policy since the second world war, when the US emerged as the core state of the world capitalist system. As early as 1940 US economic and political elites forecast a vast revolution in the balance of power: the US would “become the heir and residuary legatee and receiver for the economic and political assets of the British Empire – the sceptre passes to the United States” (8).

A year later Henry R Luce announced the coming American Century: “America’s first century as a dominant power in the world” meant that its people would have “to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation and exert upon the world the full impact of our influence as we see fit and by such means as we see fit”. He added that “in any sort of partnership with the British Empire, America should assume the role of senior partner” (9). By the mid 1940s the contours of the American Century had already emerged: US economic predominance and strategic supremacy upheld by a planetary network of military bases from the Arctic to the Cape and from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The post-war US leaders who presided over the construction of the national security state were filled, in William Appleman Williams’s words, with “visions of omnipotence” (10): the US enjoyed enormous economic advantages, a significant technological edge and briefly held an atomic monopoly. Though the Korean stalemate (1953) and the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons and missile programmes dented US self-confidence, it took defeat in Vietnam and the domestic social upheavals that accompanied the war to reveal the limits of power. Henry Kissinger’s and Richard Nixon’s “realism in an era of decline” was a reluctant acknowledgement that the overarching hegemony of the previous 20 years could not and would not last forever.

But Vietnam and the Nixon era were a turning point in another more paradoxical way: domestically they ushered in the conservative revolution and the concerted effort of the mid-1980s to restore and renew the national security state and US world power. When the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later, misguided visions of omnipotence resurfaced. Conservative triumphalists dreamed of primacy and sought to lock in long-term unipolarity (11). Iraq was a strategic experiment designed to begin the Second American Century. That experiment and US foreign policy now lie in ruins.


Britain’s long exit


Historical analogies are never perfect but Great Britain’s long exit from empire may shed some light on the present moment. At the end of the 19th century few British leaders could begin to imagine an end to empire. When Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee was celebrated in 1897, Britain possessed a formal transoceanic empire that encompassed a quarter of the world’s territory and 300 million subalterns and subjects – twice that if China, a near colony of 430 million people, was included. The City of London was the centre of an even more far-flung informal trading and financial empire that bound the world. It is unsurprising that, despite apprehensions over US and German industrial competitiveness, significant parts of the British elite believed that they had been given “a gift from the Almighty of a lease of the universe for ever”.

The Jubilee turned out to be “final sunburst of an unalloyed belief in British fitness to rule” (12). The second Boer war (1899-1902) fought to preserve the routes to India and secure the weakest link in the imperial chain, wasted British wealth and blood and revealed the atrocities of scorched-earth policies to a restive British public. “The South African War was the greatest test of British imperial power since the Indian Mutiny and turned into the most extensive and costly war fought by Britain between the defeat of Napoleon and the First World War” (13). The war that broke out in 1914 bankrupted and exhausted its European protagonists. The long end of the British era had started. However, the empire not only survived the immediate crisis but hobbled on for decades, through the second world war, until its inglorious end at Suez in 1956. Still, a nostalgia for lost grandeur persists. As Tony Blair’s Mesopotamian adventures show, the imperial afterglow has faded but is not entirely extinguished.

For the US power elite, being on top of the world has been a habit for 60 years. Hegemony has been a way of life; empire, a state of being and of mind. The institutional realist critics of the Bush administration have no alternative conceptual framework for international relations, based on something other than force, the balance of power or strategic predominance. The present crisis and the deepening impact of global concerns will perhaps generate new impulses for cooperation and interdependence in future. Yet it is just as likely that US policy will be unpredictable: as all post-colonial experiences show,

AUSTRALIA AT THE CROSSROADS-A NEW DIRECTION!

1300 PEOPLE ATTENDED!!! hearing Prof Ian Lowe, Jacqui Katona, Sharan Burrow, Julia Burnside and Dr Helen Caldicott provide their perspectives on the issues addressed.


Follow up workshop meetings are being held to discuss ways in which YOU can make a difference!

COME ALONG AND GET INVOLVED!

NEXT MEETING THURSDAY 30TH AUGUST
16 PEEL ST STH BRISBANE 7PM

Do you think it is time for ordinary Australians to speak up and demand fundamental changes to the direction of this country?
If, like us, you also believe our social fabric and way of
life is at stake, it is time for your voice to be heard.

Shoalwater Bay –an introduction Queensland’s pristine wilderness threatened by expanding foreign military use. Shoalwater Bay (SWB) is located 70 km north of Rockhampton and is adjacent to and part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine National Park and adjoins Byfield National Park. SWB has survived as a biologically diverse and superbly beautiful coastal national treasure consisting of around 400,000 hectors; hundreds of kilometres of coral coast, beaches, bays and harbours wetlands and off shore islands. Its pristine environment is a result of geographic isolation and until recently, only limited, high impact training, by the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).

TALISMAN SABRE WAR GAMES TARGET MIDDLE EAST
A mock town is being built in Shoalwater Bay military training area which has a Middle Eastern appearance. The photo on the Joint Combined Training Capability (JCTC) website shows a town built of shipping containers and bricks which includes what looks like a castle with crenellated walls.
The Defence Industry and Aerospace Report (DIAR) web site, states that:
“Each of the containers are (sic) also being modified in Brisbane for use as buildings in the creation of a mock town for military training purposes, and under the auspices of Joint Project 2098 – the Joint Combined Training Centre. The mock town will be used to train soldiers in urban environments, and will also be deployed in support of exercise ‘Talisman Sabre’ later in 2007”.
Gareth Smith, Convenor of Byron Peace Convergence said: “We have had an unconfirmed report from someone working on the site that a concrete mosque is being built at Shoalwater Bay. Talisman Sabre war games are directly targeting the Middle East. Australian Muslims will be outraged to learn that their taxes are being used by the Howard government to rehearse Australian troops for further US-led military attacks on their kinfolk. We totally oppose these war games and the network of US bases in Australia which serve to nail down our foreign policy to a US template and put us all at increased risk of terrorist attack. Where will Australian forces go next as the US moves to seize oil, gas, cobalt and diamonds, Iran? Chad? Mali? We demand an urgent explanation, Mr Howard!”
Sources:
http://www.diar.com/data/news07.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/jctc/,

Australian Gulf War Veterans Contaminated with uranium Australian service personnel who served in the Gulf during 1991 have tested positive for uranium contamination. The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) in Canada, working in conjunction with DUSK Australia (Depleted Uranium Silent Killer) has tested a representative from the Australian Navy and a representative from the Australian Army. The uranium isotope analysis on their urine was carried out at the J.W. Goethe University in Germany and confirms depleted uranium contamination. To date, the Australian Government has not acknowledged the possibility that Australian service personnel could be contaminated with uranium. However, scientific research reveals that Iraq is highly contaminated with the radioactive fallout from depleted uranium weapons. The positive tests of these Australian veterans, reveals that they are still excreting uranium through their kidneys, fifteen years after their return from Gulf War 1. The Australian veterans in this test case are ill. They exhibit multiple health problems from their exposure to radiological warfare. Their intimate partners suffer health problems and so do their children. The contamination of Iraq has resulted in an explosion of cancer, leukaemia and birth defects among the local civilian population.

Media Release Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition Thursday, 15 February 2007 New US War Base Condemned “We are appalled by the announcement that the Federal Government has secretly agreed to set up a new United States base at Geraldton in WA,” Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition National Coordinator Denis Doherty said this morning.

Talisman Saber - US/Australian War Games

http://www.peaceconvergence.com/

From the the end of May to 2 July 2007, Australia will play host to the largest military exercise in Australia - Operation Talisman Saber. According to the Public Environment Report released October 2006 it will involve nearly 14,000 US troops and over 12,000 Australian personnel. Exercise activity will take place at Australian military locations including the Australian-US "training facilities": Shoalwater Bay in Queensland and Bradshaw and Delamere Range in the Northern Territory. Support sites including civilian facilities in Australia, offshore and overseas will also be utilised.[+]
For more information www.peaceconvergence.com

Nuclear Free Queensland - QLD Nuke E-news
Feb 1, 2007. Vol.20
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your one-stop anti-nuclear action alert and newsletter!

**In this edition:**
[1.] This weeks letter
[2.] Events diary
[3.] Nuke News in Brief
[4.] Volunteers Wanted!
[5.] About Nuclear Free Queensland

----------------------------------------
[1.] Action: Letters, letters, letters!
----------------------------------------
Get those pens ready! This week we're asking you to wirte two letters: Congratualte Tim Flannery (with reservations!) and second the Australia Institute's report saying nuclear power will be unworkable because of public opposition.

====================================
Ask Tim Flannery to reconsider his nuclear stance
===================================
Good on ya Dr Tim Flannery being announced Australian of the Year. Flannery has done much to popularise science and environmental concerns and make politicians sit up and take notice. However some commentators are saying Flannery was chosen for his stance on nuclear power.

Flannery is indeed influential with our pollies, described as friendly with John Howard by the Border Mail. However, Flannery has long been a critic of the Howard governments lack of movement on climate change, lack of commitment of Kyoto, and is also critical of the govt new water plan.

There's no doubt he deserves this accolade for his good works, let's not this error in judgement on nuclear power stand in the way of that. And we couldn't want a better ally, so let's pat Flannery on the back as he deserves but gently remind him that we don't want nuclear power in Australia, not our back yards, not anywhere.
Flannery says nuclear may not be a solution for Australia but thinks sees no alternative for it being part of the solution for developing nations and other parts of the world. Let's remind him that China has a 15% renewable energy target (compared to Australia's 2) which is far greater than their nuclear energy target (5%). Australia is a major leader/exporter in solar and wind technology and should be exporting responsible energy solutions.

There is no need for uranium mines in Australia to support that overseas nuclear energy production - China and the US at least - the superpowers have their own uranium - they can use that if they really need to - selling them uranium for power frees up their uranium for their weapons programs.

He is ignoring the long term envrionmental and social impacts of starting the nuclear chain in Australia - There's no more durable and long term risk to the environment than the nuclear waste that it produces both at the mine site and after is use is over. They use massive amounts of water (something we don't have a lot of), and are susceptible to high temperatures (something we have heaps of!).

...and as an environmentalist should not be an apologistic for the nuclear industry....

Please, Mr Flannery, reconsider your public statements on nuclear power - the people are listening.

======================
5 QLD site named for N-plants
======================
This week the Australia Institute revealed the results of a report into attitudes to Nuclear plants in QLD.

They found 50 per cent of people are "against having nuclear power plants in Australia, but opposition increases when people consider the prospect of a plant built in their neighbourhood." (ABC online Jan 30)

TAI named Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island on their list of 17 possible sites around Australia. Andrew McIntosh, author of the report, says massive opposition will make implementing nuclear power unworkable author of the report said, "One of the real blockages to nuclear power being an option is the extent of opposition to it".

Hear hear, here!

Let the papers know you agree!

The Australian -
letters@theaustralian.com.au
The Financial Review -
edletters@afr.fairfax.com.au
Courier-Mail -
cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au

------------------
[2.] Events diary
-----------------
Read on.......................

War zone midwives deliver
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-midwife15jan15,0,6762067.story?coll=la-home-world

January 15, 2007

Baghdad — THE woman was nine months pregnant and in shock: She had just watched her father and uncle die at a bomber's hands. The baby was coming, but her family was afraid to take her to a hospital, where they might be kidnapped or killed by roving militias.

And so, like many Iraqis these days, they turned to an unlicensed midwife.

The baby girl was born in Samira Majeed's makeshift delivery room, a chilly, windowless apartment foyer with a sheet of battered linoleum spread across the floor like a rug. Although the infant appeared healthy, she didn't cry — a sign of trouble, Majeed told the family.

Majeed checked the baby's mouth. Sure enough, she wasn't breathing. So the midwife started to shake her, gently at first, then harder.

Desperate, Majeed resorted to a lifesaving technique she learned from her mother, a midwife herself.

"I breathed in her mouth to give her life," Majeed said, and then she pricked the newborn's ear to revive her.

Within moments, the baby began to cry. She would live.

As gunmen increasingly target hospitals and clinics in Iraq's deepening civil war, expectant mothers rely on the country's 2,000 midwives, or qabilas, and 3,000 lower-skilled rural "birth attendants" — all of whom the state no longer licenses or trains, in an effort to steer women to government clinics.

Last week, a Sunni Arab woman took her 2-month-old baby to a doctor to get a birth certificate. They were kidnapped and killed.

Majeed, who says she has delivered more than 300 babies in the last decade, was once licensed and even made house calls. But she has stopped leaving her Karada neighborhood, afraid to trust families or the streets, where militias set up checkpoints.

A Sunni Arab, she treats patients of all sects.

Women come knocking at her small door, nearly hidden below a concrete staircase in her run-down apartment building. She greets them, a short woman with a round face and wide eyes, wearing velour sweatpants and colored scarves.

Majeed leads patients into her delivery room, where the family sink and freezer sit beside a cabinet that holds painkillers, syringes, antiseptic, a stethoscope and other medical supplies.

IF the electricity isn't out, as it is a few times a day, Majeed's patients can gaze around the delivery room at her good-luck charms: a gold plaque printed with a verse from the Koran about God's life-sustaining power; a picture of the Shiite Muslim child martyr Abdullah. In the far corner, in the shadows, hangs a black-and-white photograph of a baby with a caption in English: "To be or not to be."