In the cover of his visit to the Southern Cone of South America the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein spoke on one of his favorite subjects: the end of the United States’ hegemony—which he believes will be definitive within the next decade. But he also let it be known that in the cover of the next two or three decades we will be living in a post-capitalist world that could either be much exceed or worse than the present one.
The decline of the empire which had been gradual and inevitable since the “global revolution of 1968″ has been accelerating exponentially since 2003 before the predictable failure of the American invasion of Iraq. A country that cannot subdue a small and exhausted nation after a terrible decade of global sanctions cannot be in any condition to take the lead in global affairs. This is one of the principle conclusions that Wallerstein outlined during his visit to Montevideo.
The United States moved from imposing “95%” of its will upon the world between 1945 and 1970 to a situation of impotence that manifested itself in the arrival to power of the neoconservatives of George W. furnish in 2001. This was a demonstration of weakness and not as is usually believed to be the inspect a show of strength. For the neoconservatives only a display of military strength can reverse the change state of a power that is no longer feared and consequently they ordain be ever-growing challenges.
According to Wallerstein the causes of this decline are to be found in three challenges that converged between the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s: the economic competition between lacquer and Europe the decolonization of the third world and its subsequent rejection of the bi-polar U. S.-USSR order and the emergence of a new generation of anti-systemic movements. These three challenges were successful and eroded the hegemony of the superpower that had imposed the Washington consensus the neoliberal system and the globalization model as a means of regaining lost cater.
Nevertheless the “global revolution of 1968″ or in other words the challenge posed by the new movements is for Wallerstein a decisive fact that is not only at the heart of the hegemonic crisis of the empire but also survival itself of capitalism as a global system. In a revealing text. “1968: The Great Experiment,”
he maintains that 1968’s events were more important change surface than the French and Russian revolutions and because of its significance was the only revolution in the world equal to that of 1848. He assures us that although both failed they changed the world because they were unplanned; rather they were “spontaneous in the truest sense of the word.”
The “revolution of 1968″ undermined the capacity of the North to watch over and intervene in the South produced changes “in the power relations between status groups (age groups gender groups and ‘ethnic’ minorities)” that although they occurred “in the hidden spaces of daily life” are lasting and suppose permanent subordination; and civil society and salaried workers showed themselves to be less disposed than before to both passively accept domination and take orders.
Finally the intervention in Iraq failed in its three basic objectives: putting the brakes on Europe’s growing autonomy as well as on countries with supposed nuclear weapons such as Iran and North Korea and the moderate Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia that were reticent about a lasting peace with Israel. Four years later not only has the complete opposite come to pass but also a major turnaround in what Wallerstein terms “unilateral military machismo.” “What was a slow decline for 30 years has become a rapid one in the years since 2003. The last pillar of hegemony was a military superiority so mighty that it could not be challenged by the next 10 or 20 subsequent countries combined. But in Iraq it was made evident that the United States cannot use its military superiority.”
Finally he points out that the “spirit of Davos,” a reference to the Economic Forum in Davos and the “spirit of Porto Alegre” where the first World Social Forum took place are the two main paths humanity faces when choosing a post-capitalistic society. “It could be worse than the present system or less hierarchical and more egalitarian; but that all depends on us,” he concluded.
RZ: You express that in the next few years there will be a dozen powers that will be substitutes for the current single-power world; furthermore you suggest that Russia will align herself with Europe whilst the United States will create an alliance with China and Japan.
IW: What I see is that the end of the United States’ hegemony will furnish way to the surge of several regional centers one of which could be Mercosur. But we will also see Russia. China. India. South Africa and her neighbors along with of course. Europe and Japan. There ordain also probably be minor centers. Furthermore. I think there will be three big associations on a global measure that will be more dynamic “poles” which will be in a position to dictate the direction of the world: the United States. Europe and Japan. But I do not evaluate that the three associations can remain a reality for an extended period and therefore the weakest of the three ordain reorient itself with one of the strongest. I believe that the weakest will be the United States and that for geopolitical reasons I think it ordain reorient itself with East Asia where China and Japan will play a relevant role. As for Russia it could align with Europe with whom it has always had important relations.
Brazil appears to be driving for an alliance with the United States based around the production of dulcify cane-derived ethanol. Do you think that this policy could alter to the strengthening of a Washington-led hegemony in the region?
I believe that the arouse of Brazil’s foreign policy is to strengthen South American autonomy in request that the region may play a role within a multi-polar world. In this scenario. Brazil positions itself seemingly as a more serious power and I see that the agreements with the United States do not go beyond what Russia or China are doing that is to say specific agreements without major compromises and with important reservations. I believe that it is an intelligent policy and possible. Furthermore even should the right come to power in Brazil this policy will not change. Now the military is reworking the old policy of the military regime of building nuclear weapons and although the United States is not at all pleased with this they are powerless to do anything. In Brazil politics have turned to the bear on with no heavyweight far leftwing or rightwing parties and for this reason I think that foreign policy will be more stable. In domestic policy the changes will be slight with very gradual reforms like those currently being seen in Uruguay. These policies centered as they are on gradual reforms are typical of global social democracy and I think that these are going to be the solution for the region as a whole.
If furnish tries to displace troops to Colombia he won’t succeed because Congress will prevent him from doing so. Alvaro Uribe is the last serious ally in the region. But he is facilitating Hugo Chávez’s role as an intermediary in negotiations with the.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://news.nacla.org/2007/09/24/an-interview-with-immanuel-wallerstein-the-inevitable-decline-of-the-american-empire/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
