THE AMERICAN EMPIRE Part 2: Righteous king

BEIJING - Unfortunately, haughty ideologies live off selfish interests. To fight fascism and impose democracy in Europe and Asia the United States needed more than a superior ideology - it needed force. In fact, it needed a huge military might that would help not only American ideals, but also the more earthly interests of the American nation and its companies.

The confusion between the two sides is so intimate that many in the United States believe that American ideals can coincide with the interests of American companies. But companies in a market are natural competitors, and the interests of US companies clash among themselves and with the interests of foreign companies, especially if the latter come from weaker emerging markets.

All in all it is impossible to convince a weaker country, say in Asia, that in order to side with freedom and democracy it must lay its market wide open and let its frail, upstart companies come under the boot of stronger US companies using their world-dominating market position.

This is bound to happen more and more, as the big fights against such ideas as communism and fascism are waning, and national interests take the front stage.

In fact, this is a completely new ball game where the United States needs to redefine itself, choosing a path true to its origin and identity but also adapting to the new environment without huge ideological clashes.

In China in the period between the 7th and 4th centuries BC the land was divided among many states, but there were periods in which a single state would become ba - overlord or hegemon. That state would lead the others, even if it didn't directly rule all the others. From the ancient word ba comes the modern Chinese baquan zhuyi, the "hegemonism" so bitter to American palates. In fact even in the Chinese literature ba came to assume a derogatory connotation as it was contrasted with the power of wang, what we might understand as the righteous king. The overlord, the hegemon, would impose its lead only by the use of force, while the wang, the righteous king, would lead by virtue, by what in modern terms we could define as persuasion.

Can the United States now lead by persuasion and not merely by force? This it is what it would like to do, and what could be necessary to forestall what al-Qaeda terrorists hoped to trigger - a new war of ideas of Muslims against the rest of the world.

But to forestall this war and future challenges, the US has to change the perception it gives and mark its power as wang, not as ba - it must transform its perception from baquan zhuyi to wangquan zhuyi, the power of the righteous king. This is something the Americans feel they are (or want to be) but this perception is often not shared abroad. The gap between the domestic and foreign perceptions of US policy also contributes to the frustration of the American public with foreign intervention and fuels further drives toward isolationism and unilateralism in her actions.

All this is extremely important for the war on Iraq, as that war will have three aims: to combat terrorism, to control oil resources, and to enforce world order. On all these fronts the United States must win not only for its own good, but for that of the world. Here the war of ideas (or, if one wishes, of propaganda) is even more important than that fought on the battlefield. The war of ideas in fact presents many more snares than that of the military, and yet it is arguably grossly overlooked.

The present division of opinions in Europe on the war could be very dangerous for both Europeans and Americans. Although in Asia many pundits have overstressed the many commercial frictions on the two sides of the Atlantic, in fact the partnership between Western Europe and the United States has shaped the past century. The main war theater for the two most formidable threats to the world was Europe, and it was there that the Americans and free Europeans defeated first fascism and then communism. To think that the US would go it alone and fight terrorism without Europe would be a huge break from a century of experience and would have unfathomable consequences for both the US and Europe.

What Europe does not understand, or the United States has not been able to explain convincingly to Europe, is the importance of the fight against terrorism. Europe has lived with terrorism for decades. First it was domestic, although sponsored by the Soviets (Red Brigades, Rote Armee Faction), then the threat came from the Middle East. Both Moscow and the Middle East were very close to Europe, they could not be made to disappear. The policy in Europe has thus been to live with terrorism and minimize its effects, without trying to eradicate terrorism completely. This frame of mind clashes with that of the United States, which feels it must and can eradicate terrorism. Europeans tend to think that terrorism can't be eradicated and that attempts to do so could bring about even worse scenarios. This debate could be endless, as both sides could present a good case that could hardly be conclusive on either side.

For about three decades a cartel of oil producers, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has blackmailed a cartel of industrial countries by controlling the price of the energy fueling the industries. During these three decades the industrial countries have withstood the pressure by means of a series of economic and technical measures to minimize the use of oil and differentiate the sources of energy.

Ultimately the oil producers were unwilling to bring their threat to a showdown because they were afraid that an even bigger enemy, the Soviets, could make use of the weakness of the industrial countries, defeat them and then come for a reckoning against the oil producers as well. In a way the fear of the Soviets was greater than the temptation to bring the industrial countries to their knees. At the same time the presence of the Soviets also served to restrain the industrial countries from any pushy action against the OPEC countries for fear that this could trigger a Soviet intervention in the Middle East.

I like the comparison of the US to China and also how the USSR influenced the Arab world through fear to cooperate with the US.

The paragraph about the EU and US views on terror is one of the best I've seen.

Finally, the thoughtful question of a collision between our value of freedom and our value of capitalism requires more thought.

the thoughtful question of a collision between our value of freedom and our value of capitalism requires more thought.

There is no conflict between free markets and freedom. Free market capitalism is based on voluntary contractual agreements.

Fascism and imperialism use violence to dictate the terms of trade.

The overlord, the hegemon, would impose its lead only by the use of force, while the wang, the righteous king, would lead by virtue, by what in modern terms we could define as persuasion.

If the fruits of American democracy are laid beside the fruits of Islam, there is little doubt which would ultimately triumph. It is that virtual certainty -- its inherent cultural obsolescence -- that renders Islam so prey to extremism. Fear is its only commodity.

Islam knows that it is ultimately doomed, that it cannot compete with the material and social successes of Western Judeo-Christianity. To survive, Islam must keep its peasants blinded, terrified, and ignorant, goals long sought by tyrants, and always unsuccessfully. Eventually, someone lights one small candle and the darkness dissolves. Given a chance at economic stability, Afghanistan will attest to that fact shortly.

There is no war of ideals between Western hegemony and Islamic savagery. One is the inevitable result of a superior way of life; the other is the primitive reaction of scared beasts.

Why don't people flee the US for the socialist countries?

Come to think of it, why aren't people fleeing the US in droves to go anyplace else? I seem to recall reading that in 1917-1918 Russia shut it's borders to immigration but left them wide open to emmigration, so sure were they that the world would be clamoring to enter the worker's paradise. Needless to say they managed to figure out that if they intended to have any population at all they would have to reverse that policy.

>>>>>All this is extremely important for the war on Iraq, as that war will have three aims: to combat terrorism, to control oil resources, and to enforce world order.>>>>>>

"The longer we wait, the stronger Saddam's armies become. We cannot wait for the Senate to make up its mind about granting the Chancellor emergency powers, in order to be able to use that clone army... We have the authority to go now. We must go now....."

"In response to the direct threat to the Republic from the Confederacy of Independent Islamic Systems, I propose that the Senate gives immediate emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor George W. Bush....."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.