28-02-2002 07:10									#1
	US Unilateralism & extra-territorial law: A sign of weakness? Got spare money?

After re-reading 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' I started to wonder just whether the US is a power that is rising, falling or at it's peak.

One thing that I have noticed over the last 15-20 years is the increasing trend of the US towards unilateral action and extra-territorial law.

I wondered why the US is now resorting to these more coersive measures when it didn't seem to need them in the 1950's and 1960's - when arguably it's economic power was at it's peak.


Then I noticed that almost all of the expansion of the British Empire in the 19th century came in a period when it's relative economic power was declining.

Most of India was added during the 1860's and 1870's (before then whilst Britian was undoubtably the hegemonistic power on the Subcontinent most territories remained nominally independent) and the main colonies in Asia and Africa in the 1880's and 1890's.
However, the relative economic strength of Britian was only increasing up to the 1860s and started to fall after 1880s.

One quote stood out in my mind "Britian gave up economic control over most of the third world for political control over a quarter of it".
It was only during the period when British economic dominance (and hence it's long-term ability to be a great power) was being challenged that it felt the need to exert political control over the third world.
It is interesting to note that after the 1830's opium war with China Hong Kong was the only territorial aquisition whereas there were many economic concessions made by the Manchu Empire.


Could it be that the desire of the US to act outside of binding international treaties and for it's domestic laws to carry weight outside it's borders is the same manifestation of the need for political control now that economic control is diminished?


Back in the 1960's only the USSR came anywhere close to challenging the USA economically - and even then the best it managed was a paltry third of the USA's GDP - today the EU has nearly the same level of GDP as the USA, China's GDP is over half the size of the US's, Japan's is a little under a third and India has over a quarter.


It is also extremely unlikely that the US could manage the 4-6% growth rates needed to keep the gap with China and India, the EU does grow slower but is continually adding countries (indeed in 1990 the then 12 countries of the EU had 91% of the US's GDP in 2000 the 15 current members had 94%) only against Japan has it done well over the last 20 years.



Doe anyone else think that maybe this could be a sign of US weakness rather than strength?

	28-02-2002 07:14									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If you honestly think the EU will actually stay together you are wrong IMO. There are way too many differences and they wonīt be settled. Italy and Spain are conservative, and the countries above it are Socialist.

China has a long way to go and the growth canīt go on forever at rates it is because there are major disparities because all economic growth is centered at the CCP.

So I think the US will be abled to maintain its strength.

	28-02-2002 07:16									#3
	Totally off topic Got spare money?

Is the 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' that good of a book? What is it's thesis? If it really is that informative, I'll probably have to pick it up.

	28-02-2002 07:42									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Only read the title. Interesting by itself.
It's a big question. There is no clear - cut answer. It can very well be the beggining of the end (which in any case it's not so far in the future) or it can be the last strong song of that beautiful white lake bird, you know

	28-02-2002 08:35									#5
	Re: Totally off topic Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Is the 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' that good of a book? What is it's thesis? If it really is that informative, I'll probably have to pick it up.

Paul Kennedy's best known work. Mostly a historical analysis.

	28-02-2002 08:43									#6
	Remove this text

I just wish that world economics was that simple. On second thought, I'm glad that it's not.

	28-02-2002 09:03									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

"Could it be that the desire of the US to act outside of binding international treaties and for it's domestic laws to carry weight outside it's borders is the same manifestation of the need for political control now that economic control is diminished?"

Your ratios seem correct, but this question is the heart of the argument. Let's examine the first two clauses: "acting outside international treaties" and "for its domestic laws to carry weight outside its borders."

Do you have examples of either that you find particularly telling, or is it just a general impression? Did the US do these things before? If not, when did all of this nefariousness begin?

For now, I'll hold the position that your supposition is faulty from the beginning. Rather than sloughing off treaties and acting unilaterally, the US is decidely acting opposite of that--signing trade treatings left and right, working within international institutions such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and building bilateral and multilateral ties around the world.

You only need to look at Afghanistan to see much of this in action. We obtained the necessary Security Council resolutions, even though not strictly necessary due to the causus beli. We consulted with all of the countries in the region, including Iran. We made basing deals with each country and the like by acting cautiously, but forthrightly (the exception being Pakistan, which we browbeat mercilessly immediately following 9/11). The coalition to have something afterward was in place, even though the timetable was accelerated.

As to laws having jurisdiction outside US borders, I will hold that this has always been a strain of American thought. This was "the law of the sea" in past lives. Inasmuch as this represents an inherent weakness in the US psyche over the centureis, I'll concede the point, but I think you're making a relative argument.

Two nits. (1) If you're talking relative economic influence, then you probably need to weight exchange rate GDP in the mix as well as PPP GDP. (2) China and India rising are not inevitable occurences. I view China rising as less likely than India, because their political structures are inherently unstable, even though they have shorter distances to travel.

Last edited by DanS on 28-02-2002 at 09:11

	28-02-2002 09:27									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

El Freako, I think you look too closely at the economic sides of things and not enough at the political types of thing. Wealth is only one component of a country's power.

- The USA very rarely acts unilateraly. Afghanistan was with several NATO countries. Our current training of Phillipino soldiers is with the consent and support of the local government. We usually at least have Britain to act with us. Most of the time we are accused of "unilateralism", the issue is actually a domestic one, such as the environment or the death penalty. Acting unilaterally on domestic issues is something done by all states willing and able to back up their soverignty.

- Extraterritorial law, as you say, is due to something completely new in world history, that is terrorism as seen on the modern scale. Previous precedents really do not apply to well.

- British decline in economic power had several unique reasons as well- Industrialization of the United States(Which allowed the USA to gain dominance over the once British dominated Latin American market), and the revival of the European continental states and the imperialism of those countries. Britain could not expect to maintain previous economic dominance with other European countries eating up other parts of the third world and using mercantilistic policies there, and at the same time Britain could not reasonably expect to contain all of Europe from going out and practicing imperialism.

- The peak of the USA's power should not be put in the 50's and 60's, but rather in 1991 after the fall of the Soviet Union and the balance of power was disrupted. The current status of a single-power hegemon is un-natural to world poltics, so yes, the USA's power can be expected to decline relatively. Not that the USA will weaken, but it will face new competition from re-emergence in Russia, a strengthening China, a strengthening India, and the possibility of Japan re-emerging on the world stage. The EU will either provide additional competition if it decides it has divergent interests from the USA, or if it decides it's interests are still tied with the USA it will assert more equality in the Atlantic partnership. In the same way Britain didn't neccesarily get weaker, but rather the continental Europeans, the Japanese, and the United States grew strong faster then Britain did. Due to it's excellent military with the best military technology and it's still strong economy, however, the USA can be expected to remain the top dog for some time to come.

	28-02-2002 09:28									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

This isn't a new thought to you, is it freako? Countries get insecure, they start pushing their weight around more heavily so they don't have to admit they've lost their edge.

As to whether or not this is happening to the US: possibly. I certainly think the US has peaked in relative wealth and is on a slow decline. I doubt they will cede their position as the world's #1 completely unified economic power for a while, though. If the EU firms up a bit it might make a run for this position some time in the 2030's. I wonder: what does the scale of foreign investment of the world's leading economies look like? IIRC until WWII Britain actually held more foreign capital than the US did.

	28-02-2002 09:41									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DanS For now, I'll hold the position that your supposition is faulty from the beginning. Rather than sloughing off treaties and acting unilaterally, the US is decidely acting opposite of that--signing trade treatings left and right, working within international institutions such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and building bilateral and multilateral ties around the world.

On the flip side though the US still refuses to ban landmine, still tests nuclear devices, and still refuses to ratify Koyto.

quote: Originally posted by DanS You only need to look at Afghanistan to see much of this in action.

I am sure dissidents can point out many more cases where the US acted alone, or against world opinion.

quote: Originally posted by DanS I view China rising as less likely than India, because their political structures are inherently unstable, even though they have shorter distances to travel.

You don't see the caste system as detrimental?

	28-02-2002 09:47									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger On the flip side though the US still refuses to ban landmine, still tests nuclear devices, and still refuses to ratify Koyto.

I wasn't aware that States were ever under any special obligation to agree to any and every international treaty that came along regardless of its effects on thier interests.

	28-02-2002 09:56									#12
	Suffering from ads?

Further, with regards to the Kyoto treaty, if we were to ratify that it would, ironically, help aid the decline of the US economy - it would weaken.

Yeah, like the voters would re-elect politicians who let that happen

Not to mention Congress would never ratify it - there's no popular support for it here.

	28-02-2002 13:54									#13
	Suffering from ads?

"One thing that I have noticed over the last 15-20 years is the increasing trend of the US towards unilateral action and extra-territorial law."

The rise of unilateralism is just because of the perceived lack-of-need of anyoen else. Extra-terrotorial law.... that is becoming more of an issue because the world is becoming more linked. Eg for companies, that only can be enforced on the assets of that company in the US. 20 or 30 years ago, way fewer non-US comps had such assets.

As for decline, there are some aspects I find more interesting, esp. from the POV of Kennedy's book:

- The intellectual inbreeding, hubris and increasing corruption of the elite.
- Imperial overstretch.
- Increasing reliance on actual military than on potential power.

	28-02-2002 15:14									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 or it can be the last strong song of that beautiful white lake bird, you know

	28-02-2002 15:25									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Not that the USA will weaken, but it will face new competition from re-emergence in Russia,...

I'm glad that you reaize this, many of Americans already bury us. I think we'll surpise such guys after say 10-20 years.

quote: On the flip side though the US still refuses to ban landmine, still tests nuclear devices, and still refuses to ratify Koyto.

You forgot to include revoke of ATBM treaty signed between USA and SU in 1972 at this list, and I think Yougoslavia must be added. And don't tell me that it was in coalition, USA was the flagman of this coalition, other NATO countries as I think do not wanted to be involved in this. Another example will arive soon, when the first American bomb will be droped to Iraq.

quote: I wasn't aware that States were ever under any special obligation to agree to any and every international treaty that came along regardless of its effects on thier interests.

May be I'm mistaken, but I think that this is exactly what el freako are talking about.

	28-02-2002 15:32									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: May be I'm mistaken, but I think that this is exactly what el freako are talking about.

I doubt he is... because then just about every nation would be guilty of unilateralism.

	28-02-2002 15:36									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Do you think that ratification of Koyto's treaty was in self interest of other countries who signed it?

	28-02-2002 15:38									#18
	Support Apolyton

Yes, I do... they want cleaner air.

But what the Hell does that have to do with anything I said?

	28-02-2002 15:44									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

By the price of decline in their industry growth, right?
Then why the same is not in self-interests of USA then? What, USA has different self-interests? Is it absolutely different type of a country? Americans do not want a cleaner air? or they do not want to pay price for it?

	28-02-2002 15:48									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Of course the US has different interests. What type of dumb question is that ?

The US pays more per capita, energy wise, than the European nations do, so it'd be harder for the US to move down the pike. And the US values cheap gas over cleaner air, much more than those guys across the pond do.

	28-02-2002 16:05									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Then one final qustion American want more cleaner air or not?
If answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism.
Sure, we want a cleaner air but let's other countries pay for this, not we are.

	28-02-2002 16:12									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Not at the expense of our economy. We'd take somewhat filthier air for a continual high standard of living .

And how would that be unilaterialism if we wanted clean air, and wanted to have other countries pay for it? Me thinks you have no idea what unilateralism is.

quote: Then one final qustion American want more cleaner air or not? If answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism. Sure, we want a cleaner air but let's other countries pay for this, not we are.

Do Russians want a more economic aid or not?
If the answer will be yes, then I call such actions as unilateralism
Sure, we want more economic aid, but let the US pay for this.



---

What is your point anyway? Frankly, your arguments are making no sense whatsoever. You are jumping from one issue to another for no apparent reason, and making broad generalizations and misusing terminology.

We were talking about every country agreeing to international treaties that violate their national interest and we went to this non sequiter.

	28-02-2002 16:27									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Serb You forgot to include revoke of ATBM treaty signed between USA and SU in 1972 at this list, and I think Yougoslavia must be added. And don't tell me that it was in coalition, USA was the flagman of this coalition, other NATO countries as I think do not wanted to be involved in this.

By far the most influential agency in convincing the U.S. to bomb Yugoslavia was the BBC. A majority of the population of the U.S. as well as it's national politicians were against intervention nonetheless, but the mental midgets of the Clinton foreign policy team were the most gung ho of any part of the government, and eventually congress aquiesed to the fairly recent tradition of allowing the President to fight undeclared wars.

The strongest support probably came from Britain and Germany, while Greece strongly opposed the intervention, and typically France supported it while they tried to cut the legs from the U.S.

	28-02-2002 17:06									#24
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sikander ... the mental midgets of the Clinton foreign policy team were the most gung ho of any part of the government...

Agree so far, but there had to be more behind it. While Rambouillet was still pending and the situation might have continued along with OSCE observers and lower violence levels.... along came the insane *****, and ka-boom. "Forget negotiations, let's bomb Serbia, and follow-up strategy, exit strategy, what's that?"

Germany and France were quite reluctant (and pissed at Notatallbright). Britain wasn't too happy too, it seemed, mostly for the lack of plan. I still have no explanation for US policy in that case. Maybe it's Clinton's ****-related.

	28-02-2002 17:13									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Me thinks you have no idea what unilateralism is.

May be you are right. As I understand unilateralism means one sided actions. Am I mistaken?

USA refusal of the Kyoto treaty is one sided action, because every other country which signed this treaty, also do not want to have a clean air at the expense of their economy, but those countries realize that there is no another way.

quote: Do Russians want a more economic aid or not?

Only not from USA. Thanks a lot for your aid.
Do you realy think that it is in self-interest of USA to help Russia? Do you think USA want a strong and prosper R.F.? What profit they can gain if they create a competitor for them?

	28-02-2002 17:18									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It could be. I have an extremely low opinion of the Clintons, but even I don't want to believe that he would stoop that low. But you are correct, the whole thing accelerated very quickly, suspiciously so. This might also have been an attempt to rush congress and the people along and not allow the time for another debate. Polls and political support were consistently against military intervention, and he only got troops into Bosnia by making a lot of promises which he had already broken.

Clinton was so egotistical that he was convinced that he was going to leave a foreign policy legacy of these sorts of interventions. He was correct in a sense, but the legacy is one of reluctance to get involved. Even Kennedy's foreign policy team was better. They were dangerous, but not completely stupid.

	28-02-2002 17:23									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Serb Only not from USA. Thanks a lot for your aid. Do you realy think that it is in self-interest of USA to help Russia? Do you think USA want a strong and prosper R.F.? What profit they can gain if they create a competitor for them?

Some of us don't see you as a competitor at all. We really don't have anything to fight about. Our economies are completely different, our mutual border is not disputed and far from the critical industries of our countries. We want you strong because you are next to China, and if it comes to it, the EU.

	28-02-2002 17:25									#28
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sikander But you are correct, the whole thing accelerated very quickly, suspiciously so. This might also have been an attempt to rush congress and the people along and not allow the time for another debate.

The best scenario I can come up with would be: Clinton's clowns are convinced that with a little bombing the Kosovo problem can be solved (ie in their view, removed from the headlines), and for some reason saw a window of opportunity to do it quickly. But why ?

Sure, Milosevic had been escalating, but also backstepping....

	28-02-2002 17:32									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Some of us don't see you as a competitor at all. We really don't have anything to fight about.

I am glad that you think so.

quote: Our economies are completely different, our mutual border is not disputed and far from the critical industries of our countries. We want you strong because you are next to China, and if it comes to it, the EU.

But self-interests of our countries are different too, sometimes extremly different.

	28-02-2002 17:54									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Roland The best scenario I can come up with would be: Clinton's clowns are convinced that with a little bombing the Kosovo problem can be solved (ie in their view, removed from the headlines), and for some reason saw a window of opportunity to do it quickly. But why ? Sure, Milosevic had been escalating, but also backstepping....

I think they wanted to move American foreign policy toward a Wilsonian model, and wanted a success to prove the value and viability of their model. Albright has been quoted as saying, "What's the use of having a military if you don't use it?". Republicans typically have been more reluctant to use force, and more decisive when they do use it, and they are far more interested in using it for 'the national interest'. Clinton's actions here run counter to this in every way. The use of force was not in our national interest, it was rushed into, and they used a gradualist model of incremental escalation until political pressure from the Pentagon and Republicans forced them to turn up the heat. In a sense this was an attempt to turn American foreign policy on it's head, away from self-interest and balance of power considerations and toward internationalist and humanitarian concerns. The complexity of these issues seemed not to bother the crusading impetus of Clinton's team in the conception stage, but the difficulties of execution both here and in Somalia and Haiti kept Clinton's policies limited.