Homeworks academic service

An overview of the statement of the united states on the imperial powers of europe

His recent books include Obsolescent Capitalism: Imperialism, Europe, and the Middle East The analysis proposed here regarding the role of Europe and the Middle East in the global imperialist strategy of the United States is set in a general historical vision of capitalist expansion that I have developed elsewhere. The contemporary world system will thus remain imperialist polarizing throughout the visible future, in so far as its fundamental logic remains dominated by capitalist production relations.

This theory associates imperialism with the process of capital accumulation on a worldwide scale, which I consider as constituting a single reality whose various dimensions are in fact not separable. Permanent Conflict of Imperialisms with Collective Imperialism In its globalized deployment, imperialism was always conjugated in the plural, from its inception in the sixteenth century until 1945.

The permanent and often violent conflict of imperialisms has occupied as decisive a place in the transformation of the world as class struggle, through which the fundamental contradictions of capitalism are expressed. Moreover, social strife and conflicts among imperialisms are closely articulated, and it is this articulation that has determined the course of really existing capitalism.

This new form of imperialist expansion has gone through various phases of its development, but it has been present ever since 1945.

  • At the same time, some fissures seem to have appeared between the United States and some of the European countries with regard, in theory at least, to the political management of a global system united on the principles of liberalism;
  • He claimed that by doing so, one could get Washington to exert sufficient pressure on Israel to bring it to its senses;
  • Only a few decades ago, the large firms fought their competitive battles essentially over national markets, whether that of the United States the largest national market in the world or those of the European states in spite of their modest size, which handicapped them in relation to the United States;
  • Is there any change in progress?

The hegemonic role of the United States must be located within this perspective, and every instance of this hegemony needs to be specified in its relation with the new collective imperialism. These questions pose problems, which are precisely those that I would wish to point out here.

It was thus in a position to exert its economic hegemony, since more than half of global industrial production was concentrated in the United States, especially the technologies that would shape the development of the second half of the century. In addition, it alone possessed nuclear weapons—the new total weapon.

These dual advantages were nevertheless eroded in a relatively short period of time within two decades by dual recoveries, economic for capitalist Europe and Japan, and military for the Soviet Union. We must remember that this relative retreat of U.

  • It has components that conserve their own personality, their visions of the future, including their ideologies, their militants and clienteles, but which appear to know how to cooperate in leading the struggle;
  • The nonaligned movement formulated in 1955 at Bandung by the ensemble of liberation movements of Asian and African people was the strongest current of the time;
  • Not impossible, but unlikely.

Gaullism was born at this time. Charles de Gaulle believed that the objective of the United States since 1945 had been to control the entire Old World Eurasia. His analysis was realistic, but he found himself almost alone. To the Atlanticism promoted by Washington he envisioned a counterstrategy founded on Franco-German reconciliation and the construction of a non-American Europe carefully excluding Great Britain, which he judged rightly to be the Trojan horse of Atlanticism.

The internal conflict specific to the European project can thus be summarized as the choice between two alternatives: This conflict is still not resolved. Moreover, these developments reinforce the strength of the collective character of triad imperialism.

The Project of the U.

Globalize the Monroe Doctrine The present U. Bush to be implemented by an extreme right junta that seized power through dubious elections. This is the project the U. The project always allocated a decisive role to its military dimension. Very quickly, the United States devised a global military strategy, dividing the planet into regions and allocating the responsibility for the control of each of them to a U.

U.S. Imperialism, Europe, and the Middle East

The objective was not only to encircle the Soviet Union and Chinabut also to secure the position of Washington as the ruler of last resort throughout the world. In other words, it extended the Monroe Doctrine to the entire planet, which effectively gave to the United States the exclusive right of managing the whole globe in accordance with what it defined as its national interests.

This project implies that the sovereignty of the national interests of the United States is to be placed above all other principles controlling legitimate political behavior; it engenders a systematic mistrust toward all supranational rights. Certainly, imperialisms of the past did not behave differently, and those who endeavor to minimize and excuse the responsibilities—and the criminal behavior—of the present U. But this is precisely what one would have liked to see change in the history which began after 1945.

The United States, it could be said, not only identified itself with this new principle, but had been among the first powers to do so. This good initiative—supported at the time by the people of the entire world—represented indeed a qualitative jump and opened the way for the progress of civilization, but never won the conviction of the ruling class of the United States.

The authorities in Washington always felt an overview of the statement of the united states on the imperial powers of europe at ease with the concept of the UN, and today brutally proclaim what they were forced to conceal up until now: We cannot accept excuses for this return to a vision developed by the Nazis, which accompanied the destruction of the League of Nations.

The plea in favor of international law, developed with talent and elegance by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin at the Security Council, is not a nostalgic look toward the past but on the contrary a reminder of what the future must be. On that occasion it was the United States which defended a past that all decent opinion had definitively proclaimed obsolete.

The implementation of the U. Immediately after the Second World War American leadership was not only accepted but even solicited by the bourgeoisie of Europe and Japan. For while the menace of a Soviet invasion could convince only the feeble-minded, its invocation rendered good services to the right as well as to social democrats hounded by their adversary communist cousins. That was not the case.

My explanation appeals to the rise of the national liberation movements in Asia and Africa—during the two decades following the 1955 Bandung Conference which gave birth to the movement of nonaligned nations—and to the support they enjoyed from the Soviet Union and China each in its own way. Imperialism was then forced to make do, thus not only accepting peaceful coexistence with a vast area which largely escaped its control the socialist world but also negotiating the terms of the participation of the Asian and African countries in the imperialist world system.

The collective alignment of the triad under American leadership seemed useful for managing the North-South relationships of the epoch. This is why the non-aligned nations found themselves confronted with a practically indivisible Western bloc.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the smothering of the populist nationalist regimes born from national liberation movements permitted the imperial project of the United States to be deployed with extreme vigor in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

True, the project remains in the service of collective imperialism, at least up to a certain point which I will try to clarify later. Its expression has come to be the economic government of the world on the basis of the principles of neoliberalism, implemented by the G-7 and the institutions at its service the WTO, World Bank, and IMFand the structural readjustment plans imposed on the suffocating third world.

Even on the political level, it is clear that initially the Europeans and Japanese aligned themselves with the U. This stage is still not over, even if the 2003 war on Iraq revealed some cracks in the facade. The ruling class of the United States proclaims openly that it will not tolerate the reconstitution of any economic and military power capable of questioning its monopoly of domination over the planet, and for this purpose, it gave itself the right to wage preventive wars.

Three principal potential adversaries are targeted here. In the first place is Russia, whose dismemberment, after that of the USSR, constitutes henceforth a major strategic objective of the United States. The Russian ruling class does not appear to have understood this yet.

It seems convinced that after having lost the war, it could win the peace, as had been the case for Germany and Japan. It forgets that Washington needed the recovery of these two former adversaries precisely to face the Soviet challenge.

The new situation is different; the United States no longer has a serious competitor. Their first option is then to destroy the ravaged Russian adversary permanently and completely. Will Putin understand this and initiate the process of weaning the Russian ruling class of its illusions? In the second place is China, whose growth and economic success worry the United States. Europe comes third in this global vision of the new masters of the world.

But here the North American establishment does not appear anxious, at least so far. The an overview of the statement of the united states on the imperial powers of europe Atlanticism of a few Great Britain, as well as the new servile powers of the Eastthe quicksand of the European project a point to which I will returnand the converging interests of the dominant capital of the collective imperialism of the triad, all contribute to the effacement of the European project.

It remains the European wing of the U. The reunification and the conquest of Eastern Europe even seemed to reinforce this alliance. Germany was encouraged to reclaim its tradition of thrust toward the east, and the part played by Berlin in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia by the hasty recognition of Slovenian and Croatian independence was its expression.

Is there any change in progress? The German political class appears hesitant and may well be divided as far as its strategic choices are concerned. The alternative to the Atlanticist alignment is a reinforcement of the nascent Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, which would then become the most solid pillar of a European system independent of Washington. At the same time, some fissures seem to have appeared between the United States and some of the European countries with regard, in theory at least, to the political management of a global system united on the principles of liberalism.

Are these fissures only temporary and limited, or do they proclaim some lasting changes? It will be necessary to analyze in all their complexity the logics of the new phase of collective imperialism North-South relationships in the current language and the specific objectives of the U.

In this spirit I will approach succinctly and successively five sets of questions: Concerning the Evolution of the New Collective Imperialism The formation of the new collective imperialism finds its origin in the transformation of the conditions of competition. Only a few decades ago, the large firms fought their competitive battles essentially over national markets, whether that of the United States the largest national market in the world or those of the European states in spite of their modest size, which handicapped them in relation to the United States.

The winners of the national contests could perform well on the world market. Today the size of the market necessary for gaining an upper hand in the first cycle of competition encompasses some 500—600 million potential consumers. The battle must thus be launched straightaway on the global market and won on this ground.

And those who dominate this market then assert their power over their respective national terrains. Thorough internationalization becomes the primary setting of the activities of the large firms. Therefore the transnational firms, whatever their nationality, have common interests in the management of the world market.

These interests are superimposed on the various mercanti1e conflicts, which define all the forms of competition specific to capitalism, irrespective of what they are. The solidarity of the dominant segments of transnationalized capital of all the partners in the triad is real, and is expressed by their rallying to globalized neoliberalism.

The United States is seen from this perspective as the defender militarily if necessary of these common interests. Nonetheless, Washington does not intend to share equitably the profits of its leadership. The United States seeks, on the contrary, to reduce its allies into vassals and thus is only ready to make minor concessions to junior allies in the triad.

Will this conflict of interests within dominant capital lead to the break-up of the Atlantic alliance? Not impossible, but unlikely. Therefore, submission to the hegemony to which it pretends would be impossible to avoid. I maintain, to the contrary, that in the system of collective imperialism the United States does not have decisive economic advantages.

In fact, very few of its sectors would be certain of beating competitors in the truly free market dreamt of by liberal economists.

Moreover, this deficit involved practically all areas of production.

Even the surplus once enjoyed by the United States in the area of high-technology goods, which stood at 35 billion in 1990, has now turned into a deficit. The United States is faced by European and Japanese competition in high-technology products, Chinese, Korean, and other Asian and Latin American industrialized countries in common manufactured products, and by Europe and the southern cone of Latin America in agriculture.

The United States probably would not be able to win were it not for its recourse to extra-economic means, violating the principles of liberalism imposed on its competitors! In fact, the United States only benefits from comparative advantages in the armaments sector, precisely because this sector largely operates outside the rules of the market and benefits from state support.

This advantage probably brings certain benefits for the civil sphere in its wake the Internet being the best-known examplebut it also causes serious distortions that handicap many sectors of production.

The North American economy lives parasitically, to the detriment of its partners in the world system.