Home

Mission

Contents

News

Links

Authors

About Us

Publications

Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
Conn Hallinan and Leon Wofsy. The American Century Has Plunged the World into Crisis

 

An anti-U.S. mural is seen o­n a wall of a government building in central Tehran October 12, 2011. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Conn Hallinan

Leon Wofsy

 

Conn M. Hallinanis a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, A Think Tank Without Walls, and an independent journalist. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from theUniversity of California, Berkeley. He oversaw the journalism program at theUniversity of California at Santa Cruzfor 23 years, and won the UCSC Alumni AssociationsDistinguished Teaching Award, as well as UCSCsInnovations in Teaching Award, andExcellence in Teaching Award.  He was also a college provost at UCSC, and retired in 2004. He is a winner of a Project Censored Real News Award, and lives in Berkeley, California.

 

 

Leon Wofsy Born Stamford, Connecticut, 1921, is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology / Immunology at the University of California at Berkeley. His career in science and academia began when he was almost forty years old. Earlier, for more than fifteen years, he was a leader of Marxist youth organizations. That experience began during the student upheavals at New Yorks City College (CCNY) in the late 1930s, and encompassed the time of McCarthyism in the 1950s.

Wofsy became a professor at UC Berkeley in 1964 just as the Free Speech Movement was about to erupt. He is the author of many scientific papers and articles o­n social issues. He edited a book o­n the Cold War, Before the Point of No Return (Monthly Review Press, 1986). In 1995, Leon Wofsy, author of "Looking for the Future" was a member of Democratic Socialists of America. Read more:

http://www.keywiki.org/Leon_Wofsy

 



 

The American Century Has Plunged the World into Crisis What Happens Now?

ANGLO AMERICA, 22 August 2016

Conn Hallinan and Leon Wofsy Foreign Policy In Focus

 

U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, deeply out of sync with real global challenges, full of corruption, and has not done the world well. Continuous war is inevitable if we continue to follow these same policies. Can we change this for the better?

 

22 Jun 2015 Theres something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

Despite glimmers of hope a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran, for o­ne, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba were locked into seemingly irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating cycle that reflects an inability or unwillingness to see the world as it actually is?

The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world, but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms of world order.

While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed American Century. The idea that the United States had won the Cold War and now as the worlds lone superpower had the right or responsibility to order the worlds affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started with President Bill Clintons intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued o­n with George W. Bushs disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administrations own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.

In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions that drive this impulsive interventionism.

Its this disconnect that defines the current crisis.

Acknowledging New Realities

So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to mind.

  • First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
  • Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have o­nly intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. Theres no short-term solution especially by force to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.
  • Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends o­n international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage o­n every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into friend and foe according to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
  • Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin, alternative centers of economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people); the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.

Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.

 

(Photo: U.S. Army / Flickr)

Short Memories and Persistent Delusions

But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate to the rest of the world.

The responsibility of those who set us o­n this course fades into background. Indeed, in light of the o­ngoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lots advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.

While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited, our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common ground in the fight against ISIS with designated foes like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government, despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults o­n Gaza.

A war first policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. Though its attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions with planned military realignments like the Asia pivot aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. Its also taken a more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.

We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an American Century. International order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries if we dont learn to take our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of war, there may well be no tomorrows.

Unexceptionalism

Theres a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else o­n the planet. Generally going by the name of American exceptionalism, its the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine, technology, education, and so o­n) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things o­n the rest of the world.

Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact theyve dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates. Weve made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those in the rest of the world.

Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organizations ranking of health care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations studied.

The old anti-war slogan, It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier is as appropriate today as it was in the 1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.

But challenging the exceptionalism myth courts the danger of being labeled unpatriotic and un-American, two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices.

The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology superior is hardly unique. But no other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview o­n others.

The United States did not simply support Kosovos independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders.

The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the worlds military spending. It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny bases called lily pads of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.

The United States has long relied o­n a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick smash and grabs like Panama and Grenada. Others are shadow wars waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If o­ne defines the term war as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.

 

(Photo: Dennis Dimick / Flickr)

The Home Front

The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.

According Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars including the long-term health problems of veterans will cost U.S. taxpayers around $6 trillion. o­ne can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year o­n defense-related items. The official defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesnt include such items as nuclear weapons, veterans benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions a year in interest well be paying o­n the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already paid out $316 billion in interest.

The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.

We spend more o­n our official military budget than we do o­n Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11,weve spent $70 million an hour o­n security compared to $62 million an hour o­n all domestic programs.

As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth continues to plague our homeland.

The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.

Bombs and Business

President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that the business of America is business. Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.

Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that its products dont always emulate o­n the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history will cost $1.5 trillion and doesnt work. Its over budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.

Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals. Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.

Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 Carter Doctrine a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault o­n the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Its no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests of Washington and its allies Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.

Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not o­nly essential for reducing international tensions. Its critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.

As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined and the impulse to respond by military means is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.

 

(Photo: Caelie_Frampton/Flickr)

Finding the Common Interest

These, however, are not the o­nly factors that will shape the future.

There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in American Century exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.

There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty, to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not o­nly the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.

Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive o­n gambling with the future of humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized o­n o­nly o­ne side of an ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend o­n national, ethnic, or religious identity. Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around us.

After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant change can come about in matters of policy. o­n issues of civil rights and social equality, advances have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in a way the political establishment could not defy.

The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican administrations, when a stalemate o­n the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of land mines and cluster bombs has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial efforts were labeled quixotic.

There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger of the course were o­n. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians and much of the public are beginning to say enough to war and military intervention all over the globe, and the folly of basing foreign policy o­n dividing countries into friend or foe.

This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that over-reliance o­n military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism. o­nly 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But o­nce the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.

It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.

Making Space for the Unexpected

Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?

Foremost, there is the need for a real debate o­n the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.

However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.

Nor is it a matter of concern o­nly o­n the left. There are many Americans right, left, or neither who sense the futility of the course were o­n. These voices have to be represented or the election process will be even more of a sham than weve recently experienced.

One cant predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward, although a limited bilateral pact cannot substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in the U.S.-Russian joint action that removed chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite fierce opposition from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obamas bold move long overdue to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.

We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations. We are certain that there is much weve missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S. foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests of the majority of the worlds people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.

If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy, and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we wont all agree with each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any o­ne pattern of political action.

So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do we consider the problem of power?

The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible as well as necessary to make significant changes in the power structure itself.

Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party that was successfully elected to power o­n a platform of ending austerity. Spains anti-austerity Podemos Party now the number-two party in the country came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots up. We do not argue o­ne approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate that there are multiple paths to generating change.

Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress o­n issues, particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldnt be conceived of as dependent o­n first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.

 

(Photo: Alex Abian / Flickr)

Some Proposals

We also feel it is essential to focus o­n a few key questions lest we become The United Front Against Bad Things. There are lots of bad things, but some are worse than others. Thrashing those out, of course, is part of the process of engaging in politics.

We know this will not be easy. Yet we are convinced that unless we take up this task, the world will continue to careen toward major disaster. Can we find common programmatic initiatives o­n which to unite?

Some worthwhile approaches are presented in A Foreign Policy for All, published after a discussion and workshop that took place in Massachusetts in November 2014. We think everyone should take the time to study that document. We want to offer a few ideas of our own.

1) We must stop the flood of corporate money into the electoral process, as well as the systematic disenfranchisement of voters through the manipulation of voting laws.

It may seem odd that we begin with a domestic issue, but we cannot begin to change anything about American foreign policy without confronting political institutions that are increasingly in the thrall of wealthy donors. Growing oligarchic control and economic inequality is not just an American problem, but also a worldwide o­ne. According to Oxfam, by 2016 the worlds richest 1 percent will control over 50 percent of the globes total wealth. Poll after poll shows this growing economic disparity does not sit well with people.

2) Its essential to begin reining in the vast military-industrial-intelligence complex that burns up more than a trillion dollars a year and whose interests are served by heightened international tension and war.

3) President Barack Obama came into office pledging to abolish nuclear weapons. He should.

Instead, the White House has authorized spending $352 billion to modernize our nuclear arsenal, a bill that might eventually go as high as $1 trillion when the cost of the supporting infrastructure is figured in. The possibility of nuclear war is not an abstraction. In Europe, a nuclear-armed NATO has locked horns with a nuclear-armed Russia. Tensions between China and the United States, coupled with current U.S. military strategy in the region the so-called AirSea Battle plan could touch off a nuclear exchange. Leaders in Pakistan and India are troublingly casual about the possibility of a nuclear war between the two South Asian countries. And o­ne can never discount the possibility of an Israeli nuclear attack o­n Iran. In short, nuclear war is a serious possibility in todays world.

One idea is the campaign for nuclear-free zones, which there are scores of ranging from initiatives written by individual cities to the Treaty of Tlatelolco covering Latin America, the Treaty of Raratonga for the South Pacific, and the Pelindaba Treaty for Africa. Imagine how a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East would change the politics of the region.

We should also support the Marshall Islands in its campaign demanding the implementation of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty eliminating nuclear weapons and moving toward general disarmament. If the great powers took serious steps toward full nuclear disarmament, it would make it difficult for nuclear-armed non-treaty members that have nuclear weapons North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India not to follow suit. The key to this, however, is general disarmament and a pledge to remove war as an instrument of foreign policy.

4) Any effort to change foreign policy must eventually confront the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which in the words of former U.S. Central Command leader James Mattis, is a preeminent flame that keeps the pot boiling in the Middle East. While the U.S. and its NATO allies are quick to apply sanctions o­n Russia for its annexation of the Crimea, they have done virtually nothing about the continued Israeli occupation and annexation of Palestinian lands.

5) Ending and renouncing military blockades that starve populations as an instrument of foreign policy Cuba, Gaza, and Iran come to mind would surely change the international political climate for the better.

6) Lets dispense our predilection for humanitarian intervention, which is too often an excuse for the great powers to overthrow governments with which they disagree.

As Walden Bello, former Philippine Congressman for the Citizens Action Party and author ofDilemmas of Domination: The Unmasking of the American Empire, writes: Humanitarian intervention sets a very dangerous precedent that is used to justify future violation of the principle of national sovereignty. o­ne cannot but conclude from the historical record that NATOs intervention in the Kosovo conflict helped provide the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan, and the justifications for both interventions in turn were employed to legitimize the invasion of Iraq and the NATO war in Libya.

7) Climate change is an existential issue, and as much a foreign policy question as war and peace. It can no longer be neglected.

Thus far, the U.S. has taken o­nly baby steps toward controlling greenhouse gas emissions, but polls overwhelmingly show that the majority of Americans want action o­n this front. Its also an issue that reveals the predatory nature of corporate capitalism and its supporters in the halls of Congress. As we have noted, control of energy supplies and guaranteeing the profits of oil and gas conglomerates is a centerpiece of American foreign policy.

As Naomi Klein notes in This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, the climate movement must articulate not just an alternative set of policy proposals, but an alternative worldview to rival the o­ne at the heart of the ecological crisis. A worldview embedded in interdependence rather than hyper-individualism, reciprocity rather than dominance, and cooperation rather than hierarchy.

 

(350.org / Flickr)

International and Regional Organizations

Finally, international and regional organizations must be strengthened. For years, mainstream media propaganda has bemoaned the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, while Washington especially Congress has systematically weakened the organization and tried to consign it to irrelevance in the publics estimation.

The current structure of the United Nations is undemocratic. The five big powers that emerged from World War II the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia dominate the Security Council with their use of the veto. Two of the earths continents, Africa and Latin America, have no permanent members o­n the Council.

A truly democratic organization would use the General Assembly as the decision-making body, with adjustments for size and population. Important decisions, like the use of force, could require a super majority.

At the same time, regional organizations like the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Arab League, and others, have to be strengthened as well. Had the UN Security Council listened to the African Union, which was prepared to start negotiations with the Gaddafi regime, the current Libyan debacle might have been avoided. In turn that might have prevented the spread of war to central Africa and the countries of Mali and Niger.

Working for a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, away from the hubris of American exceptionalism, is not to downgrade the enormous importance of the United States. Alongside and in contradiction to the tragic consequences of our misuse of military power, the contributions of the American people to the world are vast and many-faceted. None of the great challenges of our time can be met successfully without America acting in collaboration with the majority of the worlds governments and people.

There certainly are common interests that join people of all nations regardless of differences in government, politics, culture, and beliefs. Will those interests become strong enough to override the systemic pressures that fuel greed, conflict, war, and ultimate catastrophe? There is a lot of history, and no dearth of dogma, that would seem to sustain a negative answer. But dire necessity and changing reality may produce more positive outcomes in a better, if far from perfect, world.

It is time for change, time for the very best efforts of all who nurture hopes for a saner world.

_________________________________

Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear o­nline at Dispatches From the Edge.

Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments o­n current affairs appear o­nline at Leons OpEd.

The authors would like to thank colleagues at Foreign Policy In Focus and numerous others who exchanged views with us and made valuable suggestions. We also appreciate Susan Watrous very helpful editorial assistance.


Go to Original fpif.org


https://www.transcend.org/tms/2016/08/the-american-century-has-plunged-the-world-into-crisis-what-happens-now-2/
  




Up
© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005