The Republic becoming an Empire

[Ivo Skoric]

When Roman Republic became an Empire it lost its power to 
inspire its own citizens as well as surrounding 'barbarians' in ways 
of law it introduced to the world's history. More and more the U.S, 
administration is going the same way, trying to establish America 
as a peerless military power, a formiddable force that no one can 
stop. This creates suspicion and resentiment among allies and 
malice and hate among enemies. It puts the U.S. society on 
constant alert: the media are delivering daily scare stories ("dirty 
bomb" being the latest among them), various governmental 
departments are bracing themselves for fight against the external 
and internal enemies, that grow in size and shape exponentially, 
as they did in Stalin's Russia, people are arrested without due 
process, detained without a valid reason and persecuted for their 
political statements, all in the name of national security. The 
economy is also paying the price for this Republic becoming the 
Empire. Since George Bush entered his illustrious office, DOW, 
NASDAQ and S&P indexes are going South, pretty fast and 
seemingly unstoppable. And with the Empire being in the constant 
preparation for war, the only companies that are recording 
substantial gains, are the defense contractors - just check out their 
stock: RTN, GD, LMT, NOC. This does not bode well for the life, 
liberty and pursuit of happiness in the U.S. as well as anywhere 
else on this planet.

ivo

http://www.dailyillini.com/jun02/jun17/news/stories/news_story01.sh
tml

Bensouda called 'security threat'

  Leslie Hague
  Managing editor

  Former University student Ahmed Bensouda is being detained by 
the
Department of
  Immigration and Naturalization Services as a "national security
threat," according to friends
  who held a press conference Friday morning.

  Graduate student Aaron Love, a friend of Bensouda's, told about 
30
people gathered at the
  Champaign County Correctional Center that a bond hearing last
Wednesday had been
  delayed until June 21. The hearing Wednesday was Bensouda's 
first.

  Love said the trial included "secret evidence" against Bensouda 
that
neither he nor his lawyer
  had access to, because he is considered a "national security 
threat"
as determined by the
  judge. At the hearing Wednesday, the press and public were 
cleared
from the courtroom
  because of this, and the hearing was unrecorded, Love said.

  The INS office in Chicago deferred questions Friday to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Justice Department
  representatives did not return calls Friday.

  Outside the center Friday, friends of Bensouda held signs that 
read,
"Wake up America! The police state is here!" and
  "Due process has disappeared!"

  Friends of Bensouda confirmed Friday that he had dropped out of 
the
University in fall 2000, making his student visa
  invalid. Until Friday, the group had maintained that Bensouda
graduated from the University this May.

  "Like many young people do, I decided to take some time off from
school because my heart wasn't in it," said Bensouda
  in a statement read by Love.

  "The question remains: was my only big mistake being an 
Arab/Muslim on
an outdated visa? Not according to the way
  the authorities have been operating," Bensouda's statement 
continued.
"My case has been designated a 'special case,'
  i.e. one related to national security."

  Although the group acknowledged that Bensouda was in violation 
of visa
regulations, the group protested what they said
  was a criminal investigation and treatment for a civil violation.

  "The punishment process that followed was way out of line," said
Michael Feltes, who spoke at the press conference.

  Bensouda was arrested at his Urbana home on May 30. His first 
hearing
was last Wednesday. According to the Patriot
  Act of 2001, non-citizens can be detained for up to six months 
without
being charged.

  Bensouda's friends maintained that since he had no criminal 
record,
the only evidence that could be brought against him
  is that of his political involvement on campus, specifically his work
toward American divestment in Israel and Palestinian
  independence.

  The rally was interrupted briefly when a man who said he had to 
make a
statement began yelling that people who aren't
  citizens shouldn't have the same rights as citizens.

  "If you don't like what you're standing on, get out," he yelled before
walking away.

  Many of the protesters stressed that they believed Bensouda's 
problems
could happen to others.

  "When can we start calling this fascism?" said David Green of
Champaign. "Obviously, a line has been crossed here.
  We should all be concerned about Ahmed because it could 
happen to any
of us."

--

URL: http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/richter/2002/06-19-02.shtml

Copyright (c) 2002 by TransAtlantic Futures, Inc.

Is the idea of "Imperial America" an inspiring vision or a historically
outdated world view?

In recent months, leading analysts in the United States have begun
making comparisons between the
United States and the Roman empire. On the right, conservatives 
like Max
Boot of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page have openly called for "benign" American
imperialism.

Pax Americana?

Meanwhile, on the center-left, some "humanitarian hawks" are as 
eager as
many conservatives to use
U.S. military force in wars to pre-empt threats and topple hostile
regimes.

In the past, parallels between Imperial Rome and Imperial America 
were
primarily drawn by leftists
or right-wing isolationists.

They thought that U.S. power politics corrupted the world, the 
American
republic — or both. What
is new since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is the embrace of U.S.
imperialism by many mainstream
voices as something desirable and defensible.

An American monopoly of force?

In a speech at West Point on June 2, President Bush laid out a 
vision of
a future in which the United
States more or less monopolizes global military power — 
indefinitely.
The President declared,
"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond 
challenge —
thereby making the
destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless — and limiting
rivalries to trade and other pursuits of
peace."

Tod Lindberg, a columnist for the conservative Washington Times,
elaborates upon this assertion:
"What Mr. Bush is saying here is that the United States will never 
allow
a 'peer competitor' (in the
international relations lingo) to arise. We will never again be in a
position of 'superpower rivalry,' let
alone a a cog in a multilateral balance of power."

The "Bush Doctrine"?

Lindberg, who approves of Mr. Bush's grandiose vision, 
acknowledges that
it "is sobering if not
chilling in its implications." Of course, this is particularly true for
all of the other nations of the world,
which, it seems, will be knocked down if they rise above the humble
station to which Washington's
strategists have assigned them.

This "Bush Doctrine" is really the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Deputy 
Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
the former dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at 
John
Hopkins University in
Washington, D.C. and the brains behind Messrs. Bush and 
Rumsfeld, was
the major influence on
defense policy guidelines that the administration of the elder Bush 
drew
up in 1992. But at least a
decade ago, the Wolfowitzian grand strategy had the rather 
innocent name
of "reassurance."

Policing the global backyard

Evidentally, by filling all power vacuums everywhere with U.S. 
military
power, the United States
would "reassure" potential "peer competitors" (Europe, Russia, 
China,
Japan, India) that they did not
need to build up their militaries — or pursue independent foreign
policies. Under that same logic, the
United States would look after their security interests, in their own
regions — presumably so that they
could specialize as purely commercial powers.

As President Bush said in his June 2 speech, other leading 
countries
should be "limiting rivalries to
trade and other pursuits of peace" — while leaving the world 
policing to
the American empire.

As it stands, the Wolfowitzian imperialists — in the name of
"reassurance" in 1992 and "empire" in
2002 — want to reduce all of the other major powers in the role to 
the
status of West Germany and
Japan during the Cold War. Like Japan and the former West 
Germany,
today's EU, Russia, China
and India will be discouraged from arming, or rearming.

Peer competitors

After all, that might make them "peer competitors" of the United 
States
rather than protectorates. To
the extent that America's allies are permitted to have armed forces,
they should defer to U.S.
strategic leadership, as Britain — to a greater extent than other 
allies
— has traditionally done.

If the gap between U.S. power and that of other major countries 
were as
enormous as the gap
between the U.S. and its neighbors in North America and the 
Caribbean,
then the Bush
Administration's Imperial America strategy might make sense. But 
the
United States lacks the
economic, military and — most important — the political power to
dominate the world, as an
alternative to leading it.

American dream — or American fantasy?

Even at an impressive 20 percent of global GDP, the United States 
is
still far less important today
than it was in 1945, when it accounted for half of the industrial
production in a war-devastated world.



The EU has a larger, though less dynamic, economy than the 
United
States. And long-term growth in
Asia and elsewhere will inevitably diminish America's relative 
weight in
the world economy.

The computer revolution of the late 20th century provided the United
States with a temporary lead in
technology. But that lead will erode over time, as rising powers 
master
made-in-America technology.

This will happen in just the same way that Germany and the United 
States
— industrializing in the late
19th century — caught up with Britain, the laboratory of the 
industrial
revolution.

Power of the few?

And while the U.S. population will still grow moderately for some 
time,
that growth is chiefly the
result of a politically-contested immigration policy. Even with the
immigrant influx, the United States
will shrink in relative terms from four percent to only two percent or
one percent of a world
population that may rise to 9 or 10 billion before stabilizing. One
percent of humanity might be able to
lead the other ninety-nine percent now and then. But it cannot rule
them.

The United States may have the world's most powerful military, but 
U.S.
military power should not
be exaggerated.

Yes, America spends more on the military than most other great 
powers
combined. But it costs far
more for the United States — an island nation — to project power 
across
the oceans and skies than
it does for Eurasian countries to transport their own forces within or
near their own borders.

Russia, China and India may not be as strong as the United States 
— but
they do not need to be.
The United States would have a hard time fighting them on their 
own soil
or in their own regions.

Policy shift

The greatest flaw of the Wolfowitzian imperialists is the way they 
treat
diplomacy as an obstacle to
U.S. power — rather than as a critical component. Without allies in
Europe, the Middle East, Asia
— and elsewhere — who provide bases and overflight rights, the 
United
States would be a regional
North American power which at most could bomb hostile countries 
from the
air or sea.

An isolated America would be unable to launch ground invasions or
sustained military occupations.
Even in derelict regions like Afghanistan, the U.S. military can be 
used
effectively only in joint efforts
with America's allies — some of which, like Britain, France and 
Russia
(America's newest ally) are
still great powers, although not superpowers, in their own right.

The Bush-Wolfowitz blueprint for an Imperial America, then, is 
based on
two grave fallacies: First, a
gross exaggeration of America's actual economic and military 
power. And
second, a dangerous
devaluation of diplomacy as an instrument of American statecraft. 
As
Talleyrand said about
Napoleon's execution of the Duc D'Enghien : "It is worse than a 
crime;
it is a mistake."

Wednesday, June 19, 2002


--