|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush’s secret agenda for the world
2004.04.11 — Government | War | George W Bush | by Derek Jensen
|
Future capital of the world? |
This is part two of a two-part series. Part one is Bush's secret agenda for Iraq.
The Bush Doctrine
George W Bush's Iraq agenda will serve as a proving ground of the Bush Doctrine of cementing American dominance in the world. It has been re-re-written from the Bush 1 years to re-include militarism, unilateralism, and preemption as central tenets.
The Bush Doctrine effectively assigns America the role of World's Policeman. This seems like a great thing to many Americans because we think of ourselves as a just and democratic nation. But it's scary to a whole lot of people inside and outside the US (for example: those who remember the old chestnut about power corrupting).
|
The Bush Doctrine effectively assigns America the role of World's Policeman. |
In some ways, there is no way for us to avoid it. When evil is afoot in the world, it will often be directed at us, merely because we're the most obvious target because of our wealth and influence. We will have to police large parts of the world or suffer for it, but shouldn't the UN be a bigger part of that effort? Not according to the Bush Doctrine.
American Hegemony
Bush's plan preaches a sort of benign American hegemony, but how many around the world would agree that it's all that benign? After all, we have a history of propping up right-wing despots and starting devastating wars in the name of democracy....
Disarming the world's nations (as we largely have done in Europe and parts of Asia) and then ignoring their opinions in the UN and public opinion is not far from becoming the arrogant, militaristic, imperial power we are often accused of being. America would have so much power and influence—militarily, economically, and socially—that for all intents and purposes we would rule the world.
American Empire
All we would need to do is control a few big markets (like, say, oil) in the name of paying for our peacekeeping services and institute a system of foreign tariffs to create a kind of taxation of non-Americans. Then we would step up foreign aid to needy countries (those we want influence in). With that, Washington would have the same sort of economic weapon against dissent in the international world that it has among the domestic states. Withholding federal funds for highways and schools quickly cows state legislatures. It would likely do the same among foreign ones.
Would near-global American rule be benign and democratic? Would it enrich the world and not just America? Well, to be sure, it would enrich America first.
That's what empires do.
f e e d b a c k
Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.
