I too dislike the headline, but can accept it if the article points to a continued desire for American control of things it cannot control. The idea of continuing hegemony in a multipolar world reminds me of Colonel Blimp sipping his pink gin and dismissing the "bloody wogs", and not having discussed the matter with Dr. William Brydon.

I agree with Common Dreamer that there are immediate problems to address domestically. At the same time, there needs to be thoughtful addressing of global issues, especially those that deal with trade, resources, and a twisted "brain drain" based on offshoring. As to the latter, the history of science and technology shows that the greater the number of qualified people working on problems, the more society tends to benefit.

That doesn't mean moving research labs to Beijing. It means having a research lab in the US, or, as mine had been, with a manager in Ottawa but most participants in the US, and some in Sweden. The Swedish lab also closed down, in the short-sighted view of corporations and shareholders that cutting costs are more important than innovation.

Forgive me if I'm wandering into something that should be in my own blog post, but I see danger in what may be a dumbing-down of America, and a climate that makes innovation more and more difficult. Some of the best work has been done in small business; Cisco is a dominant technology company, but it probably puts a good deal more money into acquiring small business with great technology than it does in creating it. The double whammy of health care and capital concentration makes it more and more difficult for Americans, Americans who learned the lessons of the dot-com crash, to start innovative businesses.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This is a very important subject that should ideally be part of the national political discourse. A better title to Steve's piece would be 'American hegemony diminished'. We should see this a a wonderful opportunity for America, not a setback. We are a great nation. Our strength lies in our naturally endowed wealth, to be sure, but also in the institutions and culture we have built. The US remains, a will so for some time unless we allow it to degrade, the leading center of science and engineering with its great universities and a national laboratories both private and public. Our entertainment industry projects positive American values internationally. We continue to have the best hospitals and to lead in medical research. In addition, our democratic institutions and beautiful multicultural society should continue to inspire the rest of the world.

What is detracting from achieving these potentials is that militarism has become a dominant force in this country. We have become the world's worst aggressor intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. This effort at international control is bankrupting this country. This is the opportunity that we face. Why don't we use our resources to do what we do best and let the rest of the world solve their own internal political contradictions. Our resources can be used to create more economic equality within the US and even to see that the great health care system that we have built is available to all of our citizens.

I think most understand what would be required to achieve these ends. The US must begin to give up its global military presence with its 800 bases and to begin reducing the size of our military. Let us recognize that our borders are secure, there is no power on earth that can challenge us in North America, but also recognize that we cannot secure the borders of every nation on earth unless we want to end up in bankruptcy.

Between the three paradigmatic concepts of hegemony (respect for other cultures and business deals (China), Transnationalism , European Union, and My Way or the Highway, Oceania (USA)) the last seems the least attractive and the least likely to gain partners around the world.

The essential point of that article is that relying on militaristic coercion, leads to opposition not submission, especially since there are other power centers to align oneself with.

We need to change our view of things, but I'm afraid that that it is too deeply engrained in our elites to be a likely thing to happen. All you have to do is look at McCain's saber rattling, 100 year war and more wars to come rhetoric, to despair.

Khanna's piece seems to be a "dark" view, but it ends on a note of wonky optimism that is beyond my ken. At this moment we are looking into a whirlpool.

Khanna sees all sorts of ways of “managing” the world situation, but, what I believe really defines the world situation is that it is no longer manageable. It’s un-manageability is its defining characteristic.

I also think that Khanna is wrong about Russia’s situation. We are going to be looking at a world of much armed conflict actual and threatened and the Russians have very good weapons for sale. In fact they are the only ones that provide antiaircraft systems of a quality that can neutralize the US air force’s superiority. Thus anyone who would like to be independent of US intimidation only has Russia as an alternative. Iran is an obvious case in point.

I would imagine that Russia’s population will increase as the oil and gas money continues to filter through their society. They also have a fair base in pure science as I recall and that is a real ace in the coming world, where science will have to solve so many hair raising problems. Anyway it is silly to write off any people that produced Leo Tolstoy and who drowned Adolph Hitler in their blood.

Really, what I worry most about is the effect this stomach floating drop in power, influence and ultimately standard of living, will have on the Americans themselves. There are certainly plenty of right wing demagogues around in the USA and I am worried by the idea of a “Wiemar - America”, with an apple pie version of “ve vass stabbed in der back” in the not too distant future. There may be American leaders waiting around the corner that could make Bush look good.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

I haven't read the whole article, but if what you've excerpted is a decent flavor of what to expect, I am a little concerned.

My first observation is the characterization of the European Union as some sort of monolithic new superpower, which always strikes me as inaccurate.

The European Union acts as a reasonably coherent body when it comes to trade negotations. But how long can this unity last whilst trade negotiations founder against the backdrop of agricultural protectionism on which France is increasingly isolated in defending its position?

In any case, this tenuous unity is about the only proper unity that Europe tends to exhibit. Only half the members of the EU are part of the monetary union, there seems little popular appetite anywhere for greater political union, and further expansion of the EU (apart from the Balkan nations) seems a long way off because of deeply entrenched and opposing views. On defense beyond Europe's perimeter, there isn't much unity at all.

I fully accept that there are EU officials who see the EU as a "superpower", but just because they see it as such does not make it so. I view the EU as a group of countries that occasionally act co-operatively, but most of the time pursue their own interests. Their own interests are often tied up with defining relations between EU countries, and it confirms that European "hegemony" or something of that ilk is a fantasy.

Next, there's this assertion:

"India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite"

Development in India and China is so vastly different it defies comparison. China's leadership, so far, has staked all on manufacturing. India leadership, so far, has allowed service industries to flourish. Is India 10 years or 20 years behind China? 30? Or is is silly to imagine a any gap given standard development theory purports that India has skipped a phase and is thus already well clear of China?

Plus, India is a democracy. Maybe India has the same foreign policy conundrum as America has, that agreeing on a long-term strategy (as China has) is a heckuva lot more tricky in practice. Basically, it is wrong to assume India has a lack of strategic appetite, it just might differ depending who you speak to.

Then there's this:

"What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle."

First time in history? Come on. 70 years ago you had America, Germany, Japan, Russia and Britain in a major strategic battle, or do we need a reminder of how that played out?

But the bigger difficulty is that this time around it is another "battle". And particularly, a battle for what? Resources, maybe. Influence, perhaps. A level-playing field for international trade, I can grant you. But is it really a battle? It just seems a very loaded metaphor, when really the objectives aren't simply to beat Europe at X and defeat China on Y. There's jockeying and competing and co-operating and agreeing, but does anyone see open warfare? Even the ritualistic renmibi revaluation question falls well short of anything resembling open hostility.

In any case, I take it the key concern here is a decline of America's hegemony. Well, my take is that it has occurred because people are no longer as eager for their countries to be like America. To be 100% in America's camp, as was seen to be the case in the Cold War. America's warts are open to more scrutiny these days, and screwing up a la Vietnam carries more serious consequences in terms of international standing.

The question is so much less what can America do to make other countries come round to our liberal traditions, it is what will make other countries want to do so. As I see it, countries want to belong to the European common market (the difficulty is getting existing members to accept them); they want a constructive relationship with multi-billion strong China because they ultimately see this relationship as advantageous, certainly far better than being frozen out.

The question is therefore what America has to offer. Rich corporations, supported by an untrustworthy government, aggressively pursuing their self interests is how America is perceived these days. To reclaim a hegemony worth having, this perception has to change (and that might include dropping the martial imagery when it comes to international relations). Otherwise, America loses a defining battle with herself.