I never understood the good effects of American hegemony until they started breaking down. While I can’t approve of the evils, e.g. Iraq War, creating an international security order has enabled secure trade between countries and continents that has brought 75 years of peace to Europe, allowed the rise of China, and brought billions out of poverty by removing many of the limitations of geography. That is a great good, and it’s falling apart. The near future is going to get scary unless everyone begins cooperating in a way they don’t seem willing to do.
American hegemony drastically reduces the power of local warlords, the sovereignty argument is exactly that. That's also how you have the peace.
The problem is, you don't have a say on it. This will upset the people who disagree with the American way of doing things and everything will crumble when US falters.
Not having a say on it, also makes you susceptible to internal US politics. You can find yourself in a war or under an ambargo due to the election campaign of an US president. Iran, for example, had their deal for normalisation of the relationship however they become a part if the internal US politics and election campaign(Trump v.s. Obama) and everything changed for 83 million people of that country.
There’s also the risk of a corrupt US president actually trading with the aspiring local warlords, enabling them for personal gains. in that case you are both out of peace and control over your fate.
People have no intuition for the incredible bubble we live in, the historical uniqueness of it, and the immense work it takes to keep it alive.
The living memory of the post-WW2 order is fading and most people basically don't understand that we're living in that house, that it's very real, and that it takes maintenance.
Peace isn't the absence of war, it's the balance of power, and the recognition that not all powers are the same.
Without US relationship with Egypt, it would fall and with it the Suez, and they'd be at war with Israel very quickly. 'Real War'. Without US support of House of Saud and 5th fleet, Saudi Arabia and Iran would be probably at war. And that's just one region.
It's complicated and there is no way 'not to play the game' as in a power vacuum it will definitely be total chaos - so we have to figure out how to balance the power in some reasonable way.
I would attribute those good things to the ideological competition during the Cold War. America could not win by force alone, but it had to win people to its side and show that their way of living was better than the alternative. Things started going downhill soon after America won and became a hegemony. While the 90s promised a better future for everyone, the 2000s saw the beginning of the "war against reality", as there was no longer any existential threat to keep various political ambitions in check.
This article is very light on substance and has a questionable premise. A European customs union was a German aim of the first world war, not something foisted in them by America. To paraphrase Timothy Snyder, an actual historian, the best way to understand the EU is as a soft landing place for empires that have lost their possessions. He does some very good lectures about this available on YouTube.
The article is behind a paywall, so I can only comment on the first paragraph. But man, is that a misrepresentation of history. Totally ignoring the EU predecessors, the German reunification...
Sure, the Marshall Plan was probably the best idea the US had after WW2. But drawing a direct line between that an the current EU? Really?
Edit: Thanks to archive, I read the article. No idea where it wants to go. American security against the USSR? Culture? Economy? Finance? Choose one! Never mind that during the Cold War the current EU didn't exist in its current form. Nor did the Euro. And were is the explanation just how American history of running a continent can be applied to Europe?
Depends on where the definition for "internet" is coming from. I, for one, do believe that from the point of view that the foundation of the internet resides in ArpaNet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET), which is indeed an American invention.
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyokodo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtksn|4 years ago|reply
American hegemony drastically reduces the power of local warlords, the sovereignty argument is exactly that. That's also how you have the peace.
The problem is, you don't have a say on it. This will upset the people who disagree with the American way of doing things and everything will crumble when US falters.
Not having a say on it, also makes you susceptible to internal US politics. You can find yourself in a war or under an ambargo due to the election campaign of an US president. Iran, for example, had their deal for normalisation of the relationship however they become a part if the internal US politics and election campaign(Trump v.s. Obama) and everything changed for 83 million people of that country.
There’s also the risk of a corrupt US president actually trading with the aspiring local warlords, enabling them for personal gains. in that case you are both out of peace and control over your fate.
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
The living memory of the post-WW2 order is fading and most people basically don't understand that we're living in that house, that it's very real, and that it takes maintenance.
Peace isn't the absence of war, it's the balance of power, and the recognition that not all powers are the same.
Without US relationship with Egypt, it would fall and with it the Suez, and they'd be at war with Israel very quickly. 'Real War'. Without US support of House of Saud and 5th fleet, Saudi Arabia and Iran would be probably at war. And that's just one region.
It's complicated and there is no way 'not to play the game' as in a power vacuum it will definitely be total chaos - so we have to figure out how to balance the power in some reasonable way.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|4 years ago|reply
This is a one-sentence forward to some future history of the 21st century yet to be written.
Can we please get this engraved on the headstone of the millennial generation?
[+] [-] jltsiren|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adsfasdfadsf222|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 10000truths|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blabitty|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lammy|4 years ago|reply
e: "ME" just means "collectively remembering something one way despite it being another", not an attempt to speculate why. Relevant: https://www.vintag.es/2016/08/walter-botts-man-who-modeled-u... :)
[+] [-] Havoc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|4 years ago|reply
But it's British.
[+] [-] Fomite|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hef19898|4 years ago|reply
Sure, the Marshall Plan was probably the best idea the US had after WW2. But drawing a direct line between that an the current EU? Really?
Edit: Thanks to archive, I read the article. No idea where it wants to go. American security against the USSR? Culture? Economy? Finance? Choose one! Never mind that during the Cold War the current EU didn't exist in its current form. Nor did the Euro. And were is the explanation just how American history of running a continent can be applied to Europe?
[+] [-] chrisseaton|4 years ago|reply
Choose all of them.
[+] [-] rainpain|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unnouinceput|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ternari|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iammisc|4 years ago|reply