of world politics. On the one hand, politicians from many countries
believe that any active actions to preserve world order must be organized
only by United Nations. On the other hand, the United States is pushing
forward its aggressive unilateral policy that is based only on Washington’s
(sometimes biased) understanding of the current international situation.
This US strategy was clearly demonstrated in Iraq.
Now, after two and a half years of the war, the question must be asked if
this policy achieved its goals. Did it bring a peace and stabilization in
the post Sadam country? Yes, the military operation itself was a success.
Actually, it was difficult to imagine any other result of that war
considering that the conflict was between a mighty US and Iraq, a third
level military power.
Despite the military successes, this strategy did not produce desirable
results. The USA cannot stabilize the situation, and the Iraqis continue to
organize attacks against the US and coalition forces. May be the USA had
another reason to start the war? Some people (in Russia, anyway) believe
that a real goal of US policy in the Middle East is to take under control a
so-called the world’s hydrocarbon ellipse.
It is obvious, that a power controlling that region would become a master
of the world in this century. Now, the USA is in much less favorable
economical position than some other countries (potential America’s enemies).
So, the US efforts to extend its influence over that area are an attempt to
liquidate this imbalance once and for all. But this goal could hardly be
achieved by military means. If the USA decided to occupy some other states
in that area, they would surely face a guerrilla resistance,
like in Iraq and Afganistan. History proved that the only way to
suppress insurgency is a policy of mass terror, and I doubt that America
will ever use it. The attempts to organize puppet democratic governments
will fail too. Such regimes will be hated by the general population and
overthrown as soon as US army leaves the country. By the way, why did
Bush’s administration decide to occupy a sovereign country
to fight international terrorism? What is the connection between an
organized group of criminals and an independent state? Why not occupy
Italy to fight the Italian Mafia? I think that a Washington’s current
unilateral policy is useless and even dangerous. It is increased a
general instability in the World. Iraq became a place that attracts
terrorism from all over the globe.
The wave of anti-Americanism grew up in the world, even in Western
Europe, a traditional ally of the United States. The danger of a
terrorist attack on the territory of the United States is even higher
than itwas before the Iraq war. It seems that the only purpose of US
actions is to remain the world’s single superpower by
any means. I believe that the USA will not be able to continue its
unilateral policy anymore because it goes against objective processes in
the world economy and international relations. First of these processes
is globalization that does make the world more and more interconnected
and interdependent place. Another factor is a steady development of a
multipolar world. I doubt that China would joint a unipolar structure
and be obedient to
US decisions. The EU would become another world’s center of power.
The political regimes in European countries are very close to American,
so any military confrontations are very unlikely at this point. But an
economical competition would be intense. I would say that the other war,
between the euro and the dollar, is already on, and the dollar is
loosing so far.
There is another potential threat to the USA. Only a few years ago,
a dollar was almost equivalent to gold. People and businesses all
over the world tried to keep their savings in dollars. A huge amount
of American currency was accumulated in foreign countries. Now, when
a dollar is getting cheaper, many try to get rid of it and buy euros.
What would happen if all this dollar cash came back to the
USA? India, Japan, and Russia will probably also try to make
their influence on the world politics comparable with their
economical potential. Also, it is possible that the USA will return
to the policy of partial isolationism to concentrate on its own
problems. First, US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. This
action will greatly destabilize the situation in the Middle East,
and Iraq, probably, will become a new center of
Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic radicals will increase their
activity and the situation will become very dangerous for many
countries, but not for the USA. The terrorists simply could not
reach the United States. It will be a real danger for the EU and
Russia, American adversaries. In Russia the war could spread from
Chechnya to the whole Caucasus region. In European countries the
danger of terrorist acts would increase dramatically. Of course it
would be terrible act (an immediate withdrawing of the troops) from
a moral point of view, but the States have already shown several
times that they care only about their own interests. Money and
troops released after the war would be used to protect borders. The
threat of terrorist attack using a weapon of mass distraction is
real, and the open boarders are
the easiest way to get in the States. Boarders should be guarded
not by overweight volunteers gathering around an American flag, but
by elite troops. Some funds would be used to improve security
services; I think they need more informers. The terrorists can
strike only from inside of the United States. That is why the only
way to fight them is to put everything in order in your own country.
In conclusion, no one can say how the world will look like even in
the nearest future; we can only
predict. One thing is clear, however, the future of the country
directly depends on today’s policy.
