The awakening giants
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7954981%255E2703,00.html
By Paul Kennedy
November 24, 2003
In the middle of World War I, Vladimir Lenin, that notable expert on
power politics, observed with a mixture of amazement and conviction:
"Half a century ago, Germany was a miserable, insignificant country,
compared with the strength of England at that time.
Japan was similarly insignificant, compared with Russia. Is it
conceivable that in 10 or 20 years' time the relative strength of the
powers will have remained unchanged? Absolutely inconceivable."
Experts discuss efficacy, history of preemption
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24220
BY JOCELYN COURTNEY
Contributing Reporter
A panel of foreign affairs experts discussing
"Pre-Emption/Intervention: The Role of Military Force in U.S.
Security" drew approximately 160 Yale students, staff, and surrounding
community members to the Luce Hall auditorium Wednesday.
The Global Issues Symposium was sponsored by Programs in International
Education Recourses at Yale and the University of New Haven, in
collaboration with the League of Women Voters and Americans for
Informed Democracy. The symposium featured a panel including Yale
Diplomat-in-Residence Charles Hill, Yale history professor and
military strategy expert Paul Kennedy, and Jonathan Landay, who has
worked as a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor with a
special focus on international affairs in the Middle East.
And then there was one ...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/13/1068674312204.html
November 14, 2003
In the first of the 2003 Boyer Lectures, international affairs expert
Owen Harries says the US was surprised to find itself dominant.
A distinguished analyst of international politics, Martin Wight, once
laid it down as a fundamental truth of international politics that
"Great Power status is lost, as it is won, by violence. A Great Power
does not die in its bed". But 12 years ago, the Soviet Union, a state
not exactly averse to violence, confounded all expectations by doing
just that. It sickened, received some drastic treatment at the hands
of Mikhail Gorbachev, and quietly expired, without war or bloodshed.
In doing so it brought to an end an era of international politics, the
Cold War era, which had lasted nearly half a century. While the end of
that conflict was devoutly welcomed and celebrated, it was also
disorienting.
When Empires Speak
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/11-2003/Article-20031118-ee538833-c0a8-01ed-0030-d33cc9c12fc5/story.html
Mahmoud Awad Al-Hayat 2003/11/18
Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. National Security Advisor, was the first to
hail the November speech of President George Bush regarding the new
American vision in the Middle East and the world, considering it to be
the future American agenda of vital importance in defining the
features of the road - that of America to the Middle East or the other
way… it does not matter.
Has the US lost its way?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,661105,00.html
Does everybody hate America? Maybe the world is just concerned at the
lack of visionary leadership from such a powerful nation
Observer Worldview
Has the US lost its way? Have your say online
Paul Kennedy
Sunday March 3, 2002
The Observer
'By what right,' an angry environmentalist demanded at a recent
conference I attended, 'do Americans place such a heavy footprint upon
God's Earth?' Ouch. That was a tough one because, alas, it's largely
true.
We comprise slightly less than 5 per cent of the world's population;
but we imbibe 27 per cent of the world's annual oil production, create
and consume nearly 30 per cent of its Gross World Product and - get
this - spend a full 40 per cent of all the world's defence
expenditures. By my calculation, the Pentagon's budget is nowadays
roughly equal to the defence expenditures of the next nine or 10
highest defence-spending nations - which has never before happened in
history. That is indeed a heavy footprint. How do we explain it to
others - and to ourselves? And what, if anything, should we be doing
about this?
PAUL KENNEDY
9/9/03
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, ONE YEAR LATER
http://www.latsi.com/latsi/subcategory.jsp?custid=70&catid=1721
By Paul Kennedy
The world is looking back this week to the events of September 11, to
the twin towers, the Pentagon, the field in Pennsylvania, al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, another anniversary - different yet related - also merits
reflection, for it was almost one year ago (EDITORS: September 17)
that the Bush administration issued its now-famous document titled
"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It
was intended to be a clear and comprehensive statement of America's
post-Cold War, post-9/11 world policy, something that would anticipate
future challenges and meet all contingencies. Twelve months later -
and this has surely been one of the most turbulent twelve months in
modern history - seems a good time for a provisional assessment.
Imperial Overstretch in Iraq
http://www.alternatives.ca/article630.html
Published: Mon May 5, 2003, by Roger BURBACH
Imperial Temptations
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/snyder1.html
by Jack Snyder
AMERICA TODAY embodies a paradox of omnipotence and vulnerability. The
U.S. military budget is greater than those of the next 14 countries
combined and the American economy is larger than the next three
combined. Yet Americans going about their daily lives face a greater
risk of sudden death from terrorist attack than ever before. This
situation has fostered a psychology of vulnerability that makes
Americans hyperalert to foreign dangers and predisposed to use
military power in what may be self-defeating attempts to escape their
fears.
Empirical Evidence
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/03/haase-l-03-20.html
America's foreign-policy overstretch may hurt us most at home.
By Leif Wellington Haase
Web Exclusive: 3.20.03
Print Friendly | Email Article
War with Iraq has now begun. And while no leader should expect wars to
go smoothly, it is very likely that the U.S. military will perform
well, that Saddam Hussein's army will fall apart quickly and that many
Iraqis will welcome American troops as liberators. Moreover, it also
seems likely that troops will discover evidence that Hussein has been
concealing the means to produce chemical and biological weapons.
May 12, 2003
With the end of the U.S. war in Iraq the perspective of most
commentators across the political spectrum is that the Bush
administration is triumphant and can wreck its will on the world.
Saddam Hussein is banished from power, the United States occupies Iraq
and is sitting on top of the world's second largest oil deposits.
Referring to the failure of European as well as Arab countries to
deter naked U.S. aggression, Tariq Ali, in an editorial in the New
Left Review of London, writes, "American global hegemony... has never
been so clearly displayed."
October 6, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
The Cost of Empire
http://www.amconmag.com/10_06_03/cover.html
President Bush's war policy marks the beginning of the end of
America's era of global dominance.
By Christopher Layne
The administration's U-turn decision to ask for United Nations help in
Iraq, and President George W. Bush's request that Congress appropriate
$87 billion to fund the occupation and reconstruction of that country
send a very clear message: the administration's Iraq policy is a
fiasco. And a foreseeable one at that.
.
|
