Novamente o fim do Império Americano
|Presidente da Junta|
Mensagens : 944
Data de inscrição : 17/10/2007
|Assunto: Novamente o fim do Império Americano Qui Abr 24, 2008 10:24 am|| |
Parag Khanna, nasceu na Índia e cresceu nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, nos EUA e na Alemanha. É um especialista em geopolítica e lançou o livro “The Second World: Empires and Influnce in the New Global Order”, que está a abalar os EUA.Aconselho a verem a Revista Courrier Internacional de Abril de 2008, que, segundo li, tem um ensaio sobre este autor, e sobre o tema.
Segundo ele, durante os dois mandatos do George W Bush, o mundo mudou em resultado das suas decisões e apesar das suas decisões, a um nível que impedirão o próximo Presidente Obama, McCain ou Clinton de poder voltar a debater se na próxima intervenção de moralismo musculado deverão avançar sozinhos ou com aliados. O unilateralismo do período pós-Gerra Fria terminou.
Khanna, considera que neste período outras duas superpotências emergiram: A China e a União Europeia. Juntamente com os EUA definirão a história do Século XXI. Desvaloriza o peso global da Rússia, cada vez mais despovoada e governada pela Gazprom.gov, assim como o incoerente Islão. A Índia está muito atrasada em relação à China, quer em desenvolvimento quer em capacidade estratégica. Os três grandes ditam as regras e os restantes países deverão escolher quem pretendem seguir. Ao contrário do que aconteceu no passado, o equilíbrio de poderes disputou-se entre potências com culturas próximas. Actualmente a batalha é multicivilizacional.
Afirma que a Europa age cada vez mais como o fiel da balança entre os EUA e a China e que se jogar para os dois lados com inteligência terá muito a ganhar. Podem os conservadores americanos sentirem-se confortáveis pelas forças militares que têm estacionadas na Europa, mas na prática os europeus não necessitam delas. Que outra superpotência cresce em média um país por ano, com uma fila enorme de candidatos a entrar? O mercado único europeu é o maior do mundo. Se a China e os EUA entrarem em conflito o dinheiro de todo o mundo estará a salvo se investido em bancos europeus. No lançamento do euro esta nova moeda foi troçada pelos EUA, mas além da actual pouco surpreendente diferença cambial, alguns países muito influentes dentro da OPEP, como o Irão e a Venezuela que debatem o fim da cotação do petróleo em dólares “sem valor”.
Compara o esforço dos EUA em reconstruírem sem sucesso países como o Afeganistão e o Iraque com o investimento em sectores estratégicos em países periféricos como a Turquia e que funcionam como capital político para os prender à sua volta. Muitas regiões pobres do mundo perceberam que querem o sonho europeu e não o americano. África quer uma União Africana à imagem da UE. Os activistas do Médio Oriente querem uma democracia parlamentar como na Europa e não uma Presidência forte como nos EUA. Muitos estudantes repudiados depois do 11 de Setembro estão hoje a estudar em Londres e Berlim. Há duas vezes mais estudantes chineses na Europa do que nos EUA. Não os educando perde-se o ascendente sobre eles.
Isto e muito mais sobre a forma como a China se agiganta sem disparar um tiro, sobre a importância do que apelida de “segundo mundo” e da sua importância na definição da futura hegemonia, é tratado no seu livro. Pode aceder a um artigo em que o autor resume o próprio livro, editado recentemente no The New York Times, aqui.
Baseado em excertos da Courrier Internacional
Última edição por Presidente da Junta em Qui Abr 24, 2008 10:56 am, editado 1 vez(es)
|Presidente da Junta|
Mensagens : 944
Data de inscrição : 17/10/2007
|Assunto: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony Qui Abr 24, 2008 10:26 am|| |
By PARAG KHANNA
Published: January 27, 2008
Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it’s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It’s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn’t happen — and almost as if history itself doesn’t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.
It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.
Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.
The Geopolitical Marketplace
At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.
The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an “East-West” struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle.
In Europe’s capital, Brussels, technocrats, strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a German member of the European Parliament, calls it “European patriotism.” The Europeans play both sides, and if they do it well, they profit handsomely. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the self-described “friend of America,” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army; the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well, binding it closer to the E.U. even if it never becomes a member. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya, Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year, with others waiting in line and begging to join?
Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe from Venus, but in reality, Europe is more like Mercury — carrying a big wallet. The E.U.’s market is the world’s largest, European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance. And if America and China fight, the world’s money will be safely invested in European banks. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro, claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the European project. Yet today, Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in “worthless” dollars. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. It doesn’t help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. With London taking over (again) as the world’s financial capital for stock listing, it’s no surprise that China’s new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York. Meanwhile, America’s share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. Gisele Bündchen demands to be paid in euros, while Jay-Z drowns in 500 euro notes in a recent video. American soft power seems on the wane even at home.
And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn’t educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region’s answer to America’s Apec.
The East Asian Community is but one example of how China is also too busy restoring its place as the world’s “Middle Kingdom” to be distracted by the Middle Eastern disturbances that so preoccupy the United States. In America’s own hemisphere, from Canada to Cuba to Chávez’s Venezuela, China is cutting massive resource and investment deals. Across the globe, it is deploying tens of thousands of its own engineers, aid workers, dam-builders and covert military personnel. In Africa, China is not only securing energy supplies; it is also making major strategic investments in the financial sector. The whole world is abetting China’s spectacular rise as evidenced by the ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product — and China is exporting weapons at a rate reminiscent of the Soviet Union during the cold war, pinning America down while filling whatever power vacuums it can find. Every country in the world currently considered a rogue state by the U.S. now enjoys a diplomatic, economic or strategic lifeline from China, Iran being the most prominent example.
Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia’s rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America’s economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle — of which China sits at the center — has surpassed trade across the Pacific.
At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America’s grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country — friend of America’s or not — wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries — the so-called Stans — China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the “NATO of the East.”
|Assunto: Re: Novamente o fim do Império Americano Qui Abr 24, 2008 10:53 am|| |
EXISTE muito WISHFULL THINKING desse SOCIALISTA que odeia a AMERICA. Ele esta errado e nem conta com o PODER DA RUSSIA!!!! E so o LIBERAL N.Y.T. PODIA PUBLICAR UMA treta dessas!!!
January 30, 2008
Responses to Parag Khanna's 'Times' Mag Essay
Parag Khanna’s New York Times Magazine essay, adapted from the New America Foundation scholar’s forthcoming book The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order (Random House) gets mixed reviews among academic bloggers.
The article is long and complex, but it argues that America’s “unipolar moment” is over. “Now,” writes Khanna, “rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing—and losing—in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules—their own rules—without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.”
Among Khanna’s conclusions is that U.S. presidents must gear their rhetoric toward global, not American, interests; and that the State Department needs to organize regional commands, much as the Pentagon does, and to develop a “diplomatic-industrial complex” that would include Wall Street and foundations in federal foreign-aid initiatives.
Daniel Nexon, at The Duck of Minerva, writes that Khanna’s argument is “excellent . . . one of the most important contributions to the debate over American grand strategy to make its way into the public sphere in quite some time.”
“Khanna,” says Nexon, “thinks the U.S. needs to adapt soon to his new great game, in which the ‘second world’s’ orientation will determine the global balance of power, and, among other things, abandon the us-versus-them attitude which undermines its influence and makes great-power concert-style management difficult.
“Khanna’s put his finger on many key contemporary trends.”
But Nexon has some criticisms, too, among them that Khanna underplays Russia’s economic and political potential and overplays the notion of unipolarity’s demise.
“This is less his fault than that of the ‘unipolar moment’ crowd, writes Nexon, “many of whom overstated—and continue to overstate—the implications, as well as the degree, of American primacy.
“American primacy never implied that the U.S. could ‘make its own reality’ or largely ignore resistance to its policies and position. U.S. power depended, and continues to depend, as much on the micro-politics of its foreign relations as upon its raw military and economic might.”
“While . . . the U.S. faces serious counter-hegemonic challenges,” Nexon says, “we should be careful about equating diminished U.S. primacy with some form of tripolarity.”
Daniel W. Drezner “heap[s] praise on Khanna’s agent for getting the excerpt placed into the magazine. There’s less demand than there used to be for prose stylings that read like Benjamin Barber after a three-day coke bender in Macao.”
But Drezner is less impressed with Khanna’s argument. “Maybe I’m a stickler for conceptual boundaries,” he writes, “but I don’t think you can claim that the central conceit in your book—the second world—is really, really important by temporarily sticking China in the category to inflate the numbers.”
Alex Kafka | Posted on Wednesday January 30, 2008 | Permalink
I can’t believe Khanna’s being given kudos for a geopolitical analysis presented nearly a decade ago by Sam Huntington, for which the neo-cons constructed their so-called antidote. Actually both sides missed the point entirely, but we’ll leave that for another day…..
— marci Jan 30, 04:34 PM #
This is all group psychology—Americans struggling with monkey hormones about whether they are still top monkeys or not. Males have to get rank settled before moving onto necessary tasks and missions so articles like this are a necessary prelude, in males, to seeing needs in realities. First get one’s ego’s place fixed, then notice what is needed. Testesterone is still largely what gets published here and there, academia notwithstanding.
— Richard Tabor Greene Jan 30, 07:26 PM #
I agree with you Marci… Khanna is a Tom Friedman or Huntington wanna-be, and mentions on his website the catch-phrases and buzzwords he has coined such as “second-world”... Geopolitical realists know that no bloc of nations can effectively align successfully against US interests— not the non-aligned movement, not anyone… The US can simply split any coalition against it through carrots and sticks, or by dividing and conquering the multitude of ethnicities that make up the nation-states of the second world. Khanna speaks of Europe as a united entity, but fails to realize how something as simple as a European constitution cannot be passed by a major state such as Britain. Overall, this is simply a repackaging of all the multipolar arguments we’ve been hearing for decades…
— Juninho Feb 4, 11:19 PM #
Khanna is an anti-american and he makes me sick.
— Carolyn Feb 18, 11:27 AM #
Previous: Campus Avian-Flu Preparedness in 3 Easy Steps
Next: Debate Over 'Bodies' Exhibit in Cincinnati
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review
Mensagens : 4711
Data de inscrição : 13/09/2007
|Assunto: Re: Novamente o fim do Império Americano Qui Abr 24, 2008 3:34 pm|| |
|Cogito, ergo sun|
Mensagens : 761
Data de inscrição : 09/04/2008
Idade : 97
|Assunto: Re: Novamente o fim do Império Americano Qui Abr 24, 2008 3:39 pm|| |
- Vitor mango escreveu:
Só percebi esta parte. Posso traduzir??? Pode haver alguèm que não domine todos os idiomas. "e"
|Assunto: Re: Novamente o fim do Império Americano Sex Abr 25, 2008 12:24 am|| |
Nao batam palmas e deitem fogos antes do tempo!!!
|Assunto: Re: Novamente o fim do Império Americano || |