[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.This isparticularly the case after its experience in the GWOT, and Iraq in particular.CultureMost of the developed states have reacted to recent immigration from Third Worldcountries by adopting a form of multiculturalism.This has had the effect of diluting4 Samuel P Huntington, Who are We?: the Challenges to America s National Identity(New York, 2004). 224 The American Challengepopular commitment to the national value structure, which appears to be (and isdepicted as) but one among many of equal worth.They have also thereby dilutedtheir commitment to enforce a legal code based historically on traditional, usuallysecular Christian values.In the end this has impeded their capacity to pursue theirown strategic objectives and impose a unique values structure on citizens.Theexperience of the GWOT is likely to lead to a diminution of the commitment to thisform of multiculturalism.The US in particular has also not found it easy to generate popular global supportfor its purposes.During the Cold War there was a genuine and identifiable threat tofree societies.During the period of globalisation there was a clear goal with benefitsto be identified and pursued.These threats and promises mobilised populations, evenwhen the particular culture of the US was not to their taste.The GWOT has notserved this purpose.American culture is now a two edged sword because the US breeds and generatesits own best critics.While much of Islamist terrorist ideology is generated by theKoran, much too is augmented by the standard fare of US college students: NoamChomsky, Edward Said and The New York Times op eds.The sullen hostility of theUS cultural elite towards the Bush administration and the GWOT will not be offsetby a diet of patriotic Hollywood blockbusters, however well produced.And in thosecountries where US culture barely reaches, including much of the Islamic world,China and India, its soft power remains irrelevant.The dominant paradigms of public policy over the past two generations havefor the US become more difficult to sustain: unlimited economic expansion, cheapoil, available water resources, viable nation states and the hope for a world GDPexpanding indefinitely.Control of civil conflict, containing pandemic disease,effective use of water resources, poverty eradication and the prudent use of a finiteenvironment may be the new dominant determinants of public policy if the world scivilisations are to survive in their present form.Yet, alternatives to US hegemony still do not appear to be part of the short tomedium projections for the world balance of power.The new giants of Asia, Chinaand India, both have catastrophic problems of population, poverty and pollution withenormous potential for civil disorder.In spite of some commentators predicting thatthey will pose both an economic and military counterbalance to the US, it seemsunlikely given their limitations from overpopulation and the immense complexitiesof modernisation.Europe has yet to show the high level of unity that it would requirein order to challenge the world hegemony of the US, especially in military andgeopolitical spheres.Judging by the votes in France and the Netherlands against theEU constitution in 2005, this has not emerged.Other contenders, such as Brazil orRussia, have neither the social cohesion, military capacity nor the economic strengthto present a threat to the hegemonic position of the US.The US, therefore, in spiteof its intractable Global War on Terror and its Iraq quagmire, is likely to retain itsposition as the world s leading power in the short-to-medium term and possibly inthe long-term as well.But its hegemony is at serious risk.55 For a most perceptive analysis by Oxford Europeanist, Timothy Garton Ash, see thepessimistic Twenty-seven countries looking for a purpose , Australian Financial Review, 23 Conclusion 225The Anglo-Sphere may well also decide to set a distance from the US.TheBritish are clearly sceptical about Blair s level of support for Bush.Canada andNew Zealand have been somewhat reluctant and intermittent allies.Only Australia,therefore, as a medium sized patch of Anglo-Saxon culture in a sea of nearly threebillion Asians will continue to align itself with the US.This, of course, does notpreclude good relations between Australia and Asia but the geo-strategic needs ofAustralia living in the Arc of Instability in the Southwest Pacific indicate it shouldmaintain and extend the US alliance [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.This isparticularly the case after its experience in the GWOT, and Iraq in particular.CultureMost of the developed states have reacted to recent immigration from Third Worldcountries by adopting a form of multiculturalism.This has had the effect of diluting4 Samuel P Huntington, Who are We?: the Challenges to America s National Identity(New York, 2004). 224 The American Challengepopular commitment to the national value structure, which appears to be (and isdepicted as) but one among many of equal worth.They have also thereby dilutedtheir commitment to enforce a legal code based historically on traditional, usuallysecular Christian values.In the end this has impeded their capacity to pursue theirown strategic objectives and impose a unique values structure on citizens.Theexperience of the GWOT is likely to lead to a diminution of the commitment to thisform of multiculturalism.The US in particular has also not found it easy to generate popular global supportfor its purposes.During the Cold War there was a genuine and identifiable threat tofree societies.During the period of globalisation there was a clear goal with benefitsto be identified and pursued.These threats and promises mobilised populations, evenwhen the particular culture of the US was not to their taste.The GWOT has notserved this purpose.American culture is now a two edged sword because the US breeds and generatesits own best critics.While much of Islamist terrorist ideology is generated by theKoran, much too is augmented by the standard fare of US college students: NoamChomsky, Edward Said and The New York Times op eds.The sullen hostility of theUS cultural elite towards the Bush administration and the GWOT will not be offsetby a diet of patriotic Hollywood blockbusters, however well produced.And in thosecountries where US culture barely reaches, including much of the Islamic world,China and India, its soft power remains irrelevant.The dominant paradigms of public policy over the past two generations havefor the US become more difficult to sustain: unlimited economic expansion, cheapoil, available water resources, viable nation states and the hope for a world GDPexpanding indefinitely.Control of civil conflict, containing pandemic disease,effective use of water resources, poverty eradication and the prudent use of a finiteenvironment may be the new dominant determinants of public policy if the world scivilisations are to survive in their present form.Yet, alternatives to US hegemony still do not appear to be part of the short tomedium projections for the world balance of power.The new giants of Asia, Chinaand India, both have catastrophic problems of population, poverty and pollution withenormous potential for civil disorder.In spite of some commentators predicting thatthey will pose both an economic and military counterbalance to the US, it seemsunlikely given their limitations from overpopulation and the immense complexitiesof modernisation.Europe has yet to show the high level of unity that it would requirein order to challenge the world hegemony of the US, especially in military andgeopolitical spheres.Judging by the votes in France and the Netherlands against theEU constitution in 2005, this has not emerged.Other contenders, such as Brazil orRussia, have neither the social cohesion, military capacity nor the economic strengthto present a threat to the hegemonic position of the US.The US, therefore, in spiteof its intractable Global War on Terror and its Iraq quagmire, is likely to retain itsposition as the world s leading power in the short-to-medium term and possibly inthe long-term as well.But its hegemony is at serious risk.55 For a most perceptive analysis by Oxford Europeanist, Timothy Garton Ash, see thepessimistic Twenty-seven countries looking for a purpose , Australian Financial Review, 23 Conclusion 225The Anglo-Sphere may well also decide to set a distance from the US.TheBritish are clearly sceptical about Blair s level of support for Bush.Canada andNew Zealand have been somewhat reluctant and intermittent allies.Only Australia,therefore, as a medium sized patch of Anglo-Saxon culture in a sea of nearly threebillion Asians will continue to align itself with the US.This, of course, does notpreclude good relations between Australia and Asia but the geo-strategic needs ofAustralia living in the Arc of Instability in the Southwest Pacific indicate it shouldmaintain and extend the US alliance [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]