Who's Calling the Shots Now: The Death of American Empire

  • dlindorff's picture
    dlindorff
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

By Dave Lindorff

It may not be obvious today, and certainly it’s not how the corporate media reported it, but future historians are likely to look back at March 13, 2009 as the day that American imperialism began it’s inexorable decline. That’s the day that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced that his country was “worried” about its holdings of over $1 trillion in US treasury securities, and warned that he wanted the US to assure China that it would maintain its good credit and “honor its promises” and “maintain the safety of China’s assets.”

There is no way that the US can accommodate Premier Wen and still finance and operate a global military system with over 1000 overseas bases, massive aircraft carrier battle groups, and with hundreds of thousands of men and women armed to the teeth with the latest high-tech military hardware, not to mention fight endless wars on the far side of the globe.

What China is doing is pulling the rug out from under America’s six decades of global military dominance. It is no coincidence that the weekend before Wen’s statement, Chinese naval vessels aggressively harassed a US intelligence ship, the Impeccable, that was operating in the South China Sea.

The implied threat in Wen’s seemingly mild comment was that if the US doesn’t trim its deficit spending dramatically, and get its economic house in order—which means dramatically reducing the American standard of living, and reducing wasteful spending of its military, China will simply cut back on its funding of the US deficit, in the form of buying US Treasury issues, an act which would cause the collapse of the US dollar and what’s left of the US economy.

Now this decline of the US as an economic and military power is not going to be an overnight thing, because China needs to keep selling manufactured goods to the US market—the largest in the world—and in order to do that, it needs to keep recycling dollars spent on Chinese goods back into the US, which to date has meant buying US debt issues.

But there are other ways to recycle dollars back to the US, most notably by investing in actual US assets. To date, China has done this cautiously, in part to avoid arousing political concern in the US. Typically China, when it has purchased shares of US companies, has done so by buying small minority stakes, as it did in the case of the Blackstone Group, a private equity investment firm. But if China were to decide to stop funding America’s massive deficit, this could change. It could decide to just let the dollar slide, and take advantage of the slumping value of US assets to start buying the US up on the cheap.

There is already talk of Chinese auto companies buying up General Motors and Chrysler, and why not? They could have those companies, not to mention most of the national banks, for a song now. But China wouldn’t have to limit itself—nor would it—to buying up dying companies. It could also buy entities like General Electric, Boeing and IBM, or it could buy agricultural assets and mines—or oil companies and oil reserves.

In fact, China has been using its vast trade-surplus-fueled currency reserves of dollars and Euros to lock up at cheap prices on long forward contracts for oil and other critical commodities. This is just the beginning. (It would be ironic and incredibly foolish if the US, which has spent several hundred billion dollars in borrowed money, and as much as $3 trillion if interest costs are factored in, on conquering and controlling Iraq, really did so to gain control of oil, since China has accomplished the same thing peacefully for a small fraction of that cost, by just buying forward supply contracts.)

It is likely that India, whose economy is doing even better than China these days, will do much the same thing.

The end result will be a vast permanent weakening of America, as its economy becomes increasingly subservient to the interests of its new owners.

There is a delicious irony here, since the US, for decades, has done precisely this kind of thing around the world to developing nations, buying up their industries and their resources, and manipulating and controlling their political systems, to its own advantage, always with the backing, or threatened use, of America’s powerful military. Now the once-might US (remember Dick Cheney’s “world’s lone superpower” and George H.W. Bush’s “New World Order”?) is reduced to pleading with China to leave its warships alone, and to shamelessly begging, as Hillary Clinton did in one of her first public statements as secretary of state, for China to “keep buying” US Treasuries.

From the point of view of the majority of the world’s people, who have lived for too long under the American jackboot, this is all a good thing. But forcing the new “Rome” to retreat back within its own borders will also be good for us Americans, who have had to pay for all those military adventures in the name of empire and corporate profits over the years with our blood and taxes.

The problem, for us, however, is that all this military and economic comeuppance will also be accompanied by a dose of reality about our own real living standard. As long as China, India and the oil-producing states were willing to just keep buying American government securities to finance our multi-generational spending binge, it was possible for the US government to keep us citizens all fat and happy by creating a series of bubble economies, pushing up our salaries and the value of our homes to absurd levels, while interest rates remained comfortably low and the US dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, remained strong enough for us to continue to buy goods, the production of which was increasingly being moved overseas.

Suddenly, however, in one brief speech, Chinese Premier Wen has made it clear that the US is no longer calling the shots. Nobody’s saying it out loud here in America, but behind the scenes, it’s clear that increasingly US economic policy is going henceforth to be dictated by governments in places like Bejing, Tokyo, New Delhi and Brazilia. Those same places will also increasingly be telling us where and even if we can use our once mighty military forces.

Given our post-WWII history, that can’t be a bad thing.
_______________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He spent five years reporting on China and Hong Kong for Business Week magazine in the 1990s and is author, most recently, of “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Comments

What is really ironic Dave,

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

What is really ironic Dave, is that since the Revolutionary War it has always been the American Military that made it possible for you and your kind to write your anti-American drivel, and they have always been willing to fight to the death for your right to do so. Your Chinese counterpart would end up in a political prison for writing the same thing about his fucked-up country. Ill-gotten wealth, like might, does not make right.

I agree that the neocons and their PNAC plan for controlling the world's resources (including the invasion of Iraq) was indeed an imperialistic scheme, and the American People have overwhelmingly rejected them. But to imply that the entire US Military, and the US citizen-soldiers who serve, were in on the plot is absurd.

You seem to forget that the main reason that the US still has military bases around the world, was made necessary by people with names such as: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Krushchev, and list goes on and on. If you sincerely believe that the United States should adopt a total "hands-off" and isolationist policy, disband our military, and stick our heads in the sand -- it is you, and other pacifists, who are living in a dream world.

Unlike Roman, British, or Soviet "jackboot" Imperialism, the United States of America does not "absorb" and rule over other nations -- we have "allies" and we protect them. Some of our past enemies are now our staunchest allies, and have asked us to maintain a military presence in their countries because they are threatened on a daily basis. The world remains a dangerous place, and the US Military plays a large part in making it a little safer for all of us.

So go ahead and cheer our present, and temporary, Republican-caused economic crisis, and place all of the blame on non-existent American "Imperialism." Go ahead and exercise your blood-soaked Constitutional Rights to deride the United States of America and all that it stands for. As we "upstart" Americans have always done, we will overcome these challenges, and move on to even more prosperity in a much safer world.

What is REALLY ironic is how you forget

  • dlindorff's picture
    dlindorff
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

George Washington's warning about the danger of "standing armies" and of "foreign entanglements."

I don't need self-styled superpatriots like you to tell me what people have done to "protect our freedom". One of my grandfathers was permanently cripled by mustard gas from Verdun in WWI. The other won a silver star for heroism on that same front as an ambulance driver in the Army.

My dad was a Marine in WWII, and my mother served in the Navy in that war. On the other hand, WWI was really a pointless war, and was not about "protecting American freedoms." And there has not been a war since WWII that should have been fought. Not one was about "protecting America's freedom." Double Congressional Medal of Honor winner Marine Smedley Butler had it right when he said he was a soldier for American Capitalism.

I happen to have lived in China, and I know what a dictatorship is. That doesn't make it right for the US to have 1000 bases, most of which are just there to keep Third World countries docile as US companies exploit their people and shift jobs away from the US to maximize their profits.

If America's freedoms are under threat, and they are, it is from the crazed militarism of this society, and the ease with which people like yourself have been suckered into believing that you have to spend $1 trillion a year--as much as the rest of the world combined--to have a hugely bloated and unnecessary military machine.

Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net

A thought.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Could you answer the objection without recourse to overstating the objector's point?

Jim

"Self-styled superpatriot?"

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

"Self-styled superpatriot?" Not even close bucko, and I certainly don't need a lecture from someone who disregards other Americans' sacrifices, whether or not you lived in China, or Timbuktu. I have lived and worked in Southeast Asia, West Africa, the Middle East, South America, and Nepal, but that doesn't mean jackshit when it comes right down to it. The United States of America ("Capitalistic" warts and all) remains the shining example to the world of how to fight for, build, and maintain, a free, open, and prosperous society -- and even we are still learning.

It's strange how you always attack without addressing the criticisms directed toward your far-left, anti-military, diatribes. And as far as "protecting America's freedoms" goes, how about protecting global and Allied freedoms? Were the military/industrial complex manufactured Vietnam and Middle East "wars" (Korea is still a toss up) morally justified? No they were not, but our citizen-soldier military didn't just wake up one morning and decide to enter those wars. The people of the United States elected the politicians who decided to undertake those misadventures. The People of the United States also replaced those assholes in subsequent elections, and we just did it again. We may ocassionally fuck up, but our hard-earned Constitution gives us the freedom to correct those mistakes.

As a combat vet I deplore war, but I am realistic enough to realize that there are more wannabe Hilters just around the bend, if we don't help other countries to oppose them. Which part of maintaining a military presence around the globe as a deterrent to opportunistic aggression do you not understand? The "cold war" is not over -- it is just in an extended cease-fire phase. We no longer live in an isolated "Neville Chamberlain" bubble (and haven't since the beginning of WWII) and a fart in China can be smelled in Chile. Could we accomplish this vitally important world-wide mission more cheaply? Of course we could, and President Obama is already looking at ways to do just that (much to Cheney's displeasure).

Now run along and join a misguided far-left anti-military protest somewhere, you old hippie...;-)

Its too bad....

  • Ole's picture
    Ole
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Its too bad you can't disagree with others on this site without being so dismissive and darn right nasty. If I would of made comments like you do about others on this site my comments would be removed. Which wars were necesary. I think only 4 the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, the civil war and ww11. Also you stick Nikita Krushchev in with Stalin and Mao ste tung. Albeit he was a dictator but nothing like those 2 . You can be glad he was running the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. Do you think Stalin or even Breshnev would of backed down to Kennedy. I don't think so. Another one of your claims is that the US does not absorb land from other nations. We have not done it for awhile, but what do you call the spanish american war or the the mexican-american . I do believe we gained some territory there.
You are doing the same thing the neo-cons have done and continue to do. Anyone that questions US policies is un-american. You may not say it directly, but the implication is there clear for anyone with eyes that see.

The exact opposite, no?

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

We are all clearly missing each other.

We ALL agree that the military budget, and many particular wars, are wrongheaded and oft times to a massive degree. Bill has been accused twice now however, of not agreeing to that!

The disconnect is coming because Bill argued against the anti Military tone of the piece, and folks are essentially ONLY countering the tone of Bill's response.

This occurs when posters fall into a camp.

Perhaps readers will disagree with my final points below, but you can't get my point (in order to disagree with it) unless you pause long enough consider the following:

Let's stop thinking of ourselves as observers:

---In 2000, for example, when it was not clear if BOTH candidates would not simply declare themselves winner, I had the chilling realization that I might have to take sides and therefore take up arms. It was fleeting of course (less than a minute, but I remained slack jawed for that time). A flood of thoughts entered my mind as well, but I was no longer an "observer" of American History. These thoughts did not come with glory, and background music. The thoughts were muddied by how to best protect my 3 little daughters, my wife, etc.

---A similar moment came when I watched a documentary about a certain criminal. This man was heavily muscled and extremely lean. The striations between muscle fibers could be seen in his face. You could tell, as he spoke, that he wanted you to believe him to be sincere but he was a cold soul. Here is what he would do: I'll start by mentioning that he was not Gay. Odd way to start I know, but... Anyway, this guy would drink a bit and had a bit of a temper. When he got into a bar fight he would beat his opponent until unconscious. The twist here however was that to humiliate his opponent, he would then fuck their unconscious body.

Now, I train: I lift weights, sprint, etc. This guy however was a monster in every sense of the word, and even though some Right Wingers make my blood boil, there are monsters out there that I need help in killing. That is, before they F my loved ones up.

---I'd like to list dozens of visuals, but I'll spare the reader.

I hope that everyone internalizes the above, and does not simply view the world from the third person.

Okay, so that was the prep.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are my points:

1) WE ALL AGREE THAT THE MILITARY BUDGET, AND WHEN TO GO TO WAR, NEEDS PROFOUND CHANGE.

2) THAT DEBATE SHOULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE "CULTURE" SURROUNDING SOLDIERS "PREPARING" TO BE SOLDIERS.

That "preparation" is multi-tiered and I would again ask that folks internalize it for themselves before casually dismissing it as something "out there". Something not really needed too often. Something a bit non civilized. Etc.

It involves parents giving up their children IN CASE we need them. Giving up their children NOW, regardless if the civilian leadership is making the calls correctly NOW. We are a Nation of Laws, and we must remain so if we are to defend ourselves when the civilian leadership DOES make the right call.

It involves drawing from the broad genetic pool we have in the USA, both decent folks and ass holes who presently make our blood boil. We survive as a species because of that diversity. We need "weak" folks who will nurture our technological civilization during peace time, and we need assholes who will rip off someone's head and shit down their neck. Why? Well, I can be a nice guy BUT I can't beat down all the evil bastards I have personally seen in this world.

Now most things in life are a two edged sword, and I too can offer counterarguments to the above. The bar I'm reaching for however, is low. It is simply that point (1) is critical, and MINIMALLY it is political suicide to mess with point (2).

I just had a student ask me about the yield of 1 kg of Uranium 238 enriched with 3% Uranium 235. A reasonable question given the course he was taking, but bracing none the less. This is no game. Real bastards are out there, and we need all kinds, and all cultures, to beat them back.

For Christ's sake (literally) folks are acting as if you can motivate millions of guys to fight a Hitler, and then turn it all off. You can't. If you want a Nation capable of defeating Nazis then YOU need to nurture our armies even during times when the civilian leadership is nuts.

I'm also open to discussions about cutting the military budget.

Jim

Ole, you really should take

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Ole, you really should take more time to read and understand what you rail against. You missed almost every point I made, and addressed none of them.

We also took a bunch of land away from the British, but we did not "absorb" them, nor did we "rule" them. Neither did we absorb and rule Mexico, Spain, Cuba, nor the Philippines, which remain self-governing sovereign nations. And I believe that few would object to giving Texas back to Mexico, as long as they're willing to take Karl Rove and Dubya as a part of the deal...;-)

The Roman Empire was imperialistic. Hitler's Germany was imperialistic. The British Empire was imperialistic, and the world still suffers for their greed (Middle East and Africa). The USSR was imperialistic, and the world still suffers for their failed ideology (Eastern Europe). The Chinese Empire is imperialistic (Tibet, Taiwan, etc.).

The United States of America is not now, nor has it ever been, even close to committing the broad scale of imperialistic atrocities and human rights violations of these other "empires." The single, inexcusable, exception being the railroad Robber Barons' (the PNAC M/I Complex of their day) decimation of the Native Americans, and that was (and remains) fucked up beyond belief.

The USSR, on the other hand, absorbed (through invasion and "puppet" political maneuvering) and iron-fistedly ruled many sovereign nations and their peoples. Stalin's protege (although he later denounced some Stalinist policies, but remained just as ruthless) and eventual shoe-pounding ("We will bury you!") successor, Krushchev, whom you seem to admire, was the one who caused the Cuban missile crisis, the Cold War arms race, and single-handedly brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. Ask the Hungarians, Georgians, Poles, East Germans, and other citizens of Krushchev's "Warsaw Pact" how they remember him. And yes, the leaders of China, North Korea, and Russia (among others) are still dangerous to the health and welfare of the Free World.

And lastly, I have never said, nor implied, that questioning US Political Policy is "un-American," as that is the essence of patriotism. I totally agree with Eisenhower's take on the politically-driven, corporatist, greed-motivated, and war-mongering-for-profit civilians (PNAC being the latest incarnation) of the "military/industrial complex."

Questioning, or deriding the motives and dedication of (and the need for) the citizen-soldiers, past and present, of the US Military, however, is disingenuous at best. The American people are not a herd of pacifists, and are quite willing to kick ass when, and where, absolutely necessary (and therein lies the crux of this argument -- who determines the definition of necessary, and by the Constitution it is the Congress). After the battle however, we are just as willing to give our opponents a hand up, and help them rebuild their sovereign nations.

The concept of an American militarily-imposed "Empire" is a far-left myth, and a Republican neoconservative pipe wet dream.

Lindorff, do you owe Iraq War Vets a debt of gratitude?

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Thinking this through would be extremely useful.

You and Bill agree about World War II. Your pieces would be far more persuasive with that agreement included. Seriously.

Jim