Source: Soft Balancing against the United States
I should have technically written about this long time ago but considering my perceptions have no supports in the political arena, why bother? But then I thought, would Tony Stark do this? Would he back down because no one could get a read on him? No he would say, "I shouldn't be alive, unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy...I just finally know what I have to do. And I know in my heart that it's right." The US has bullied the world for far too long. It has unilaterally abandoned the Kyoto accords on global warming, rejected participation in the International Criminal Court, and withdrawn from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, among other foreign policies. It has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretexts and maimed millions of civilians in the process. Undermined the Geneva Convention. It has threatened Iran and Syria. Effectively launched a rhetorical global crusade against Islam. It refuses to be give accountability to its misdeeds. Why hasn't anyone done anything to stop the US? Why are we all sucking our thumbs reading the horrors of US led war on terror?
Did you know WWII was preventable? If the League of Nations prevented Hitler from breaking the Treaty of Versailes, achieved disarmament and enforced collective security instead of appeasement, there would have been no such thing as the Holocaust! UK and France believed that Hitler would be appeased if allowed to invade Poland, Czechoslovakia and neighbouring states - that he would stop after amassing some power, territory and wealth. They wanted to weaponize Hitler's fascism to defeat Stalin's communism. But appeasement only encouraged Hitler. He didn't stop at anything until he had destroyed half of Europe. So should we keep appeasing the US?
BTW, all this is legit history, grade 10 stuff.
Well here is how the international community can play chess against the US:
(a) traditional hard-balancing measures, such as military buildups, war-fighting alliances,
(b) Soft balancing using international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic arrangements.
Although soft balancing may be unable to prevent the United States from achieving specific military aims in the near term, it will increase the costs of using U.S. power, reduce the number of countries likely to cooperate with future U.S. military adventures, and possibly shift the balance of economic power against the United States. For example, Europe, Russia, and China could press hard for the oil companies from countries other than the United States to have access to Iraqi oil contracts, which would increase the economic costs of U.S. occupation of the country. Europeans could also begin to pay for oil in euros rather than in dollars, which could reduce demand for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and so increase risks of inflation and higher interest rates in the United States. Most important, soft balancing could eventually evolve into hard balancing. China and European states could also increase their economic ties with Russia while ontinuing or even accelerating support for Iran’s nuclear program, a step that would eventually bring the US to its knees.
The United States may be the sole superpower, but it is geographically isolated. To project power in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it depends greatly on basing rights granted by local allies. Indeed, all U.S. victories since 1990—Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan—relied on the use of short-legged tactical air and ground forces based in the territory of U.S. allies in the region. Without regional allies, the United States might still be able to act unilaterally, but it would have to take higher risks in blood and treasure to do so.
Turkey mashaAllah did an awesome job by refusing to allow U.S. ground forces on its soil. This reduced the amount of heavy ground power available to the US against Iraq by one-third, thus compelling the it to signifcantly alter its preferred battle plan, increasing the risk of casualties etc.
France, Germany, Russia, and China could help by pressing hard for the UN rather than the United States to oversee the administration of oil contracts in Iraq, perhaps even working with the new Iraqi government for this purpose. Even if they did not succeed, U.S. freedom of action in Iraq and elsewhere in the region would decline. If the United States gave in, it would lose control over which companies ultimately obtain contracts for Iraq’s oil, and so pay a higher price for any continued presence in the region.
Speaking of oil, Today Europeans buy their oil in dollars, a practice that benefits the United States by creating extra demand for dollars as the world’s reserve currency. This extra demand allows the United States to run outsized trade and government budget deficits at lower inflation and interest rates than would otherwise be the case. A coordinated decision by other countries to buy oil in euros would transfer much of this benefit to Europe and decrease the United States’ gross national product, possibly by as much as 1 percent, more or less permanently.
Perhaps the most likely step toward hard balancing would be for major states to encourage and support transfers of military technology to U.S. opponents. For example provide nuclear technology to Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam etc, states that U.S. plummeted. The major powers block U.S. steps to put pressure on Pakistan and Syria. For instance, if the United States attempts to make military threats or impose economic sanctions, European countries should open their doors in wider in support for the victims. Without broad international support, the US will continue to spread of mass destruction to other countries using preventive war, aggressive illegal weapons and torture, which does not serve world peace interests. US has become a superpower authoritarian regime and menace to the world. Stop it before WWIII.
In the near term, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and other important regional states are unlikely to respond in this manner. Directly and indirectly confronting U.S. preponderance is too costly for any individual state and too risky for multiple states operating together, at least until major powers become confident that members of a balancing coalition will act in unison. Even then I know Europe and East Asia will never play chess with the US. This is something that we have to do.
Pape, Robert Anthony, 1960- International Security, Volume 30, Number 1, Summer 2005, pp. 7-45 (Article)
Published by The MIT Press
I should have technically written about this long time ago but considering my perceptions have no supports in the political arena, why bother? But then I thought, would Tony Stark do this? Would he back down because no one could get a read on him? No he would say, "I shouldn't be alive, unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy...I just finally know what I have to do. And I know in my heart that it's right." The US has bullied the world for far too long. It has unilaterally abandoned the Kyoto accords on global warming, rejected participation in the International Criminal Court, and withdrawn from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, among other foreign policies. It has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretexts and maimed millions of civilians in the process. Undermined the Geneva Convention. It has threatened Iran and Syria. Effectively launched a rhetorical global crusade against Islam. It refuses to be give accountability to its misdeeds. Why hasn't anyone done anything to stop the US? Why are we all sucking our thumbs reading the horrors of US led war on terror?
Did you know WWII was preventable? If the League of Nations prevented Hitler from breaking the Treaty of Versailes, achieved disarmament and enforced collective security instead of appeasement, there would have been no such thing as the Holocaust! UK and France believed that Hitler would be appeased if allowed to invade Poland, Czechoslovakia and neighbouring states - that he would stop after amassing some power, territory and wealth. They wanted to weaponize Hitler's fascism to defeat Stalin's communism. But appeasement only encouraged Hitler. He didn't stop at anything until he had destroyed half of Europe. So should we keep appeasing the US?
BTW, all this is legit history, grade 10 stuff.
Well here is how the international community can play chess against the US:
(a) traditional hard-balancing measures, such as military buildups, war-fighting alliances,
(b) Soft balancing using international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic arrangements.
Although soft balancing may be unable to prevent the United States from achieving specific military aims in the near term, it will increase the costs of using U.S. power, reduce the number of countries likely to cooperate with future U.S. military adventures, and possibly shift the balance of economic power against the United States. For example, Europe, Russia, and China could press hard for the oil companies from countries other than the United States to have access to Iraqi oil contracts, which would increase the economic costs of U.S. occupation of the country. Europeans could also begin to pay for oil in euros rather than in dollars, which could reduce demand for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and so increase risks of inflation and higher interest rates in the United States. Most important, soft balancing could eventually evolve into hard balancing. China and European states could also increase their economic ties with Russia while ontinuing or even accelerating support for Iran’s nuclear program, a step that would eventually bring the US to its knees.
The United States may be the sole superpower, but it is geographically isolated. To project power in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it depends greatly on basing rights granted by local allies. Indeed, all U.S. victories since 1990—Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan—relied on the use of short-legged tactical air and ground forces based in the territory of U.S. allies in the region. Without regional allies, the United States might still be able to act unilaterally, but it would have to take higher risks in blood and treasure to do so.
Turkey mashaAllah did an awesome job by refusing to allow U.S. ground forces on its soil. This reduced the amount of heavy ground power available to the US against Iraq by one-third, thus compelling the it to signifcantly alter its preferred battle plan, increasing the risk of casualties etc.
France, Germany, Russia, and China could help by pressing hard for the UN rather than the United States to oversee the administration of oil contracts in Iraq, perhaps even working with the new Iraqi government for this purpose. Even if they did not succeed, U.S. freedom of action in Iraq and elsewhere in the region would decline. If the United States gave in, it would lose control over which companies ultimately obtain contracts for Iraq’s oil, and so pay a higher price for any continued presence in the region.
Speaking of oil, Today Europeans buy their oil in dollars, a practice that benefits the United States by creating extra demand for dollars as the world’s reserve currency. This extra demand allows the United States to run outsized trade and government budget deficits at lower inflation and interest rates than would otherwise be the case. A coordinated decision by other countries to buy oil in euros would transfer much of this benefit to Europe and decrease the United States’ gross national product, possibly by as much as 1 percent, more or less permanently.
Perhaps the most likely step toward hard balancing would be for major states to encourage and support transfers of military technology to U.S. opponents. For example provide nuclear technology to Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam etc, states that U.S. plummeted. The major powers block U.S. steps to put pressure on Pakistan and Syria. For instance, if the United States attempts to make military threats or impose economic sanctions, European countries should open their doors in wider in support for the victims. Without broad international support, the US will continue to spread of mass destruction to other countries using preventive war, aggressive illegal weapons and torture, which does not serve world peace interests. US has become a superpower authoritarian regime and menace to the world. Stop it before WWIII.
In the near term, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and other important regional states are unlikely to respond in this manner. Directly and indirectly confronting U.S. preponderance is too costly for any individual state and too risky for multiple states operating together, at least until major powers become confident that members of a balancing coalition will act in unison. Even then I know Europe and East Asia will never play chess with the US. This is something that we have to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment