Phil > That is the New World Order with the US at the Apex. Conformity will be a necessity. Who can stand in the way?
Here's an article which attempts to answer that question.
cato.org
>>>As P. B. Mehta, professor of law and philosophy at India's Jawaharlal Nehru University, recently explained, "This war will almost certainly result in a greater anti-Americanism around the world and may even occasion a more concerted effort to build coalitions to challenge American hegemony."
Indeed, this practice of power-balancing-power follows a pattern of history from ancient Greece to the modern era, when Britain confronted France, France and Britain confronted Germany, and all those countries then joined the United States to confront the Soviet Union.
The Bush administration believes it will break this pattern because of the virtue with which it will exercise its power. That conviction, however, challenges the philosophy that founded the United States: unchecked power will invariably be abused.
Thus, when international coalitions form to oppose the United States, they will only be putting into practice the philosophy of checks and balances espoused by the American Founders.
The Bush administration's national security strategy runs counter to the Founders' aims another way. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington implored the American people to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." And yet, it is precisely this overgrown military establishment that will be needed to police an implicit American empire.
Consequently, if the United States declares it is assuming imperial responsibilities for the defense of world order, we should not be surprised if other countries conclude that this development signifies a threat to their own liberties. <<< |
