The UN rears its ugly head again as an international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet. By ugly I mean those members of the UN whose rule at home has nothing to recommend them such as Syria, China or Ghana. They claim that the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.
One of the things at issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming.
But this is the bit that opens the knife in my pocket.
Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, “consumer protection,” and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for “universal access.”
I know that there is not much love lost for ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, established to handle some of those topics, but these kind of noises from the UN represent a political challenge as they come from predictable corners. CNET news.com provides excerpts from a transcript of a recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the UN’s Working Group on Internet Governance that offers clues about the plot to dethrone ICANN. Please note the sophistication and understanding of internet and the related issues by the participants:
Syria: “There’s more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit…The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable.”
Brazil, responding to ICANN’s approval of .xxx domains: “For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let’s be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names.”
China: “We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework…For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace–we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body.”
Ghana: “There was unanimity for the need for an additional body…This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N.”
So the usual ‘control-and-destroy’ approach of the UN scum. Can they do anything about it? Apparently there is the nuclear option .
Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN–but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.
Declan McCullagh, the author of the article, believes that such an outcome remains remote, but possible, which turns an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become surprisingly important. I hope the US does not let go…
Never mind the “U.S. government [having] undue influence over how things run online”, the US has undue influence over the UN. Period. Witness the running sore of Palestine/Israel and the US’s vetoes.
If most americans had their way, the US influence over the UN would end abruptly … by giving all of the UN ‘crats 48 hours notice to leave the US, followed by bulldozing the UN building into the East River.
That should work to correct fb’s ideas about un-due US influence at the UN.
As for the Internet … it was a creation of the US DoD’s DARPA, and first took off as a commercial entity in the US in the early to mid 1990’s. If China and the other johnny come latelies want a say in it’s management, they can just lump it, or build their own and try to vend it.
And that’s relevant how exactly…
This seems another of the ‘lets-bash-the-US’ statements, rather than looking at the likes of Syria, Brazil, China and Ghana.
My only hope is that US would bother to exercise even greater ‘influence over UN’, whatever that means, in order to reign in the toxic Tranzis. Or leave it altogether to get the message across…
Tranzis?
But what is wrong with anti-US sentiment, when the US is run by a bunch of corrupt bullies?
If the UN wants part of the action it must be a nice little earner.All those efficient Oil for Food myrmidons could administer it
It isn’t just what you are against Fouci,it is what you are for.
Peter: Well for a start, it would be nice if the world’s largest democracy had a permanent seat on the Security Council.
I believe the US Commerce Department already issued a statement (last week?) indicating that the they would not be ceding control of the root servers. The statement reads, in part:
Given the Internet’s importance to the world’s economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. As such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
and
While the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly.
In short, I don’t think that the internet is in immediate danger of falling under UN control no matter how much howling that leads to.
For the first time ever I’m glad that the USA has shown the wisdom and restraint not to kick the UN out of New York. Better to keep the useless corrupt tossers where you can keep an eye on them, and slap them down if they get too headstrong.
foucault’s buddy
But what is wrong with anti-US sentiment, when the US is run by a bunch of corrupt bullies?
Then I trust you will not be phased by my anti-Arab, anti-African and anti-South American sentiments?
foucault’s buddy: why not come back when the second synapse starts firing? It may be possible to have a conversation with you at that stage.
Gee,Fouci,thats really nice,kick the French off give the worlds largest democracy a seat,why not.Your site though,seems to indicate an interest in wanking and dead French philosophers,pretty much the same really.
I don’t think the UN is going to assume control of the net any time soon, at least not outside the paranoid fantasies of the libertarian fringe.
However, so what if it did?
The real-soon-now launch of IPv6 will mean a pool of multiple unique and permanent IP addresses for each individual on the face of the planet. It is hard to see how anyone could possibly exert real control over a potential 6 billion plus servers – it’s just not practically feasible, even if it is theoretically possible.
If Brazil et al can Balkanise the internet, so can anyone else. You can have multiple parallel networks, some in and some out of UN/whatever control. The only way you can stop this is to prevent access to the telephone network. Again, outside paranoid fantasy, this is not going to happen because it would have to be done on a global scale and would wreck much international business.
Worst case, you would see the return of unregulated dialup BBSes. The principles of how the internet works are in the public domain and are no longer revolutionary or novel, and it would be unlikely to be long before these BBSes become a second internet.
Any long term plan to control the internet is doomed to failure. One might as well propose controlling the publishing of books, which doesn’t work in all but the shortest term. There are always alternatives.
EG
How timely. I met up with a friend today who has launched a new site for the UN. He was speaking to one of Kofi Annan’s top advisers, who commented to him, “We have been struggling to get a new website up and running for more than nine months. You launched this one in three days, for £300.” I won’t quote my friend’s response, but I can tell you what mine would be: “Yes, and how horrifying that you think you should be in charge of anything. The words ‘piss-up’ and ‘brewery’ spring to mind.” If the idea of them holding any responsibility for anything to do with the internet doesn’t strike fear in your heart, it may be because you don’t have one (or a brain, for that matter).
It seems F.B. has turned up here – although I believe (when, and if, he thinks about it) he will understand that World Government control of the internet is not a good idea.
It is not likely that his own political opinions would be in favour with the powers-that-be and the U.N. is not a pro First Amendment type of organization. Under U. N. rule F.B. would find himself in trouble.
It seems that resisting World Government (which could only be world tyranny) is one of the few postive functions President Bush performs.
The United States does not live up to its Constitution – but there are fits of resistance to the rule of the international elite – and oddly enough (oddly considering his families East Coast Establishment background) President Bush is sometimes the route by which these fits of resistance influence policy.
Of course (as the Economist pointed out) any other nation can set itself up in competition to the services the United States provides concerning the internet – it is for users to decide which system they prefer to use.
As for the U.S. and the U.N.
Well (of course) I stand for “U.S. out of the U.N.” (as the old slogan used to be). I would have “U.K. out of the U.N.” as well.
The U.N. could continue to pass its demented resolutions without any fear of veto – and these resolutions would be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Although (and this bit will please F.B.) I am not in favour of United States government aid to Israel. I am not in favour of United States government aid to anywhere (including to the United States – Tenth Amendment, no power to dish out subsidies at home as the “General Welfare” mentioned in Article One, Section Eight is the purpose of the powers of the Congress, not a power in-its-self).
Given the retards, from Koffi on down, running the UN, I don’t think we have a thing to worry about. They think there would be money in it, of course – a lovely little earner – but they’re nowhere near bright enough to get through the brilliant people who really do make money out of running the net. Just can’t see myself signing up for an account as Sojourner@kofi.org. Nah.
Despite Paul Marks’s comments, I would, though, love to see that nest of venality bulldozed, preferably by the Israelis who clear houses that have sheltered Palestinian terrorists. Poetic justice, to use a trite phrase.
Government folk do not have to be very bright – they just have to have violence to call on.
Not even very high tech violence (hundreds of thousands of people in Africa have been killed with cutting tools – and the flesh of a computer person is as soft as anybody else’s flesh).
But I do agree with Verity about the U.N. buidling – I would love to see it go.
Let the U.N. move to North Korea – a place more in line with the basic political principles of the U.N.
So if you are against aid to Israel, would you also be against aid provided to Britain before the US enter WWII?
I’m not going to waste any time feeding the troll, but I do want to make a few comments about this subject.
While it may be satisfying to do a little UN bashing, specifically about the Internet, and generally about the rest of the mess, it is very unwise to underestimate the threat posed by its pervasive commitees, councils, and commissions. There are several that would love to expand into Internet control issues if the chance arose.
The various thugocracies that constitute the governments of many of the members of the “august body” are terrified by the ease of communication and information exchange the internet has brought. Just as the Soviets used to closely control typewriters, fax machines, and copiers, the current generation of statists are desparate to get a handle on computer hardware and software , as has been discussed here several times in the past few months.
It must be remembered that “freedom of the press” as expressed in the Bill of Rights is directed at the use of printing presses by individuals to print up and circulate the pamphlets and newspaper bulletins that so energized the citizenry in the runup to the Revolution. This function in the modern world is filled by the users of the internet who can pass information around the world in hours via blogs and ‘zines.
The priorities of the statists are not oriented toward the development of information and communication, but specifically aimed at the suppression of anything which might contradict the “official line”.
This site is well named. It is the unfettered debate among free and independent minds that poses the direst threat to the advance of the collective. They know it, and will do anything that possibly can to prevent it.
What are we prepared to do to preserve it?
I tell you as a techie, first a “fragmented root” already exists (eg: there’s OpenNIC which grants their own root names, etc). Second, a fragmented root which you can’t bypass is inconcievable as DNS is currently designed. All it takes is Joe User configuring their machine with a fall-back DNS server being some public box the USA. You’d better believe the “protected” Brazilian schoolkids will cotton on to this in double-quick time.
The core thing the UN doesn’t understand about the internet, is that apart from IP there exists no mandatory infrastructure. If they fuck up the original root DNS, people will just switch to another set of roots. It’s perfect competition out there.
A lot of paranoia here that normally I would enthusiastically share in. No lover of the UN and Transnational Progressives here. However, the CCITT does a pretty good job of regulating telecoms standards globally and did so for most of the 20th Century, even during the war the Allies and the Axis powers continued sending cooperating representatives to its meetings.
If the CCITT was used as the model I would be pretty relaxed about the whole thing.
Besides, anyone, and I do mean anyone, can set up alternative root servers and offer new top level domains whenever they wish. An organisation called Alternet did precisely this during the nineties; its success can be measured by the fact I couldn’t find a trace of this service a few minutes ago. For China to do the same thing behind its Great Firewall would be technically pretty simple, although it would be a reet pain in the arse organisationally.
Sorry, that was AlterNIC, not Alternet. And it still doesn’t exist any more.
Good background information here –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
That picture at the bottom of the post, with the naziesque UN logo, was chilling.
While Julian Morrison makes the main point I was going to, he neglects a possibility–setting up an alternate root and blocking packets to IPs associated with ICAAN root servers at the border, e.g. the Great Firewall of China.
Sam: that would be hard. Note that the GFWOC is mainly effective because backed by massive overt force – technologically bypassing it is fairly simple through eg: the Tor network.
Also, DNS is quite hard for countries to firewall because of the way “proxying” is its default mode of operation. It’s nowhere near so simple as just blocking the ICANN servers.
Actually what NYC would probably do is gut the UN building and turn it into tax raising high priced flats no doubt developed by Trump. Instead of a leech and a center for anti-Americanism it would be turned into a net asset to NYC and the US.
Do the UN really want the wrath of techies & hackers coming down on them? This should be fun to watch.
Ok, the FACT that these people are openly discussing doing just what the article says (did you even click through the frigging links?) Are you under the impression c/net (C/NET for Christs sake!) are “paranoid libertarians?” It proves yet again that Euan Gray is a mindless blogroach troll who disagrees for the sake of it.
The Russell Square bomber was a Jamaican married to an English girl,one can understand the rage he had about Iraq.Coincidentally the were both converts to Islam.
Well, no. But your comment does prove that you don’t read the comments of others before sounding off about them.
People can discuss all they want. Other people can get concerned about what the first people are discussing. So far, so rational. Where the paranoia comes in is assuming that what the first group of people are discussing will actually come to pass.
To put it simply, it is not paranoid to get concerned about UN discussion about controlling the internet, but it is paranoid to assume that the UN has any real possibility of ever actually controlling the internet. But then, if you’d read my post you’d understand that’s what it said, wouldn’t you?
EG
Just for the record: “Foucault’s buddy” is not a Samizdata.net ‘black bag’ operation (i.e. some Samizdatista posting comments under a pseudonym) to make the left look utter absurd.
It seems this fount of wisdom is for real (either that or someone is using the ChomskyBot to have a Ha Ha). Truth is, as ever, stranger than fiction.
I’m glad I’m not Foucault. I should hate to have a buddy like him burbling away about running sores.
I never thought the US ran the ‘net. Not judging by all the anti-American, pro-lunatic bile you can find on a whole range of half-baked sites.
Or is this that strange thing called free speech? The thing so many left-of-centre states strive to strangle?
For once I agree with Euan Gray. I put the UN’s chances of controlling the Internet at zero. That is not to say it won’t try. The computer age we live in is expanding too fast for those berks on the East River to muscle in, thank goodness.
I agree … Euan has nailed it. I, for one, would immediatly ignore any attempt to get me to use DNS servers that didn’t conform to the current specs.
I still think that building needs to bulldozed into the East River, regardless of whether or not the UN is effective at its evil….
Do you ever make a comment where you don’t name-drop Jackie? You know in polite society its not the done thing to brag about who one knows.
What a welldone article, thank you Adriana!
Personally I look forward to UN-sponsored spam along the lines of, “pay off your international debt relief in just 2 days with our new UNBono card”, or “Clear your World Bank credit status in just one easy go – as advertised on TV by Bob Geldorf”, plus the good old faithful, “ever wished your Swiss bank account could spurt dollars or pounds, instead of just dribble Euros – why not try our new UN “Mugabe” subsidy aid programme (not available to US and UK citizens) – 10 out of 10 dictators say its the “shizzle”…
I dunno. I think it’s perhaps better to have an incompetent UN inside the tent pissing out, as it were, than to have a changed and more competent one outside pissing in.
I think the world has progressed to the stage where, like it or not, some form of organisation like the UN is more or less unavoidable. The pragmatist would recognise this, and would prefer at this stage to have a weak and spineless UN to salve the global conscience whilst the individual states get on with what needs to be done in the real world. Reforming the UN may make it more effective, and thus harder to ignore. It’s probably most sensible to have it close to the dominant global power, which is (for now) the US.
EG
Euan, at the risk of agreeing with you again (!) I kind of agree. My only reservation is that the UN has, for far too long, given a bogus respectability to lots of duff regimes down the years.
Johnathan,
That’s perfectly true, but one must concede that the UK and the US have done their share of legitimising duff regimes (Shah of Persia, Marcos, Saddam, etc). They have also caused not a few problems by trying to oppose duff regimes (not the friendly type of duff, the bad type), presumably in an effort to correct defects in the UN-type of model.
Much of the current problem with militant Islam, for example, springs from the misguided but entirely understandable attempts of the west to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, a strategic blunder of monumental proportions deriving mainly from American paranoia about the Red Menace and lack of understanding of the Soviet political-strategic view. I’m not a foreign policy expert, FGS, but if I could see at the time (and say at the time too, this isn’t 20/20 hindsight) that it was a screwup then one might reasonably expect some of the professionals to do so. Probably they did, only to be overruled by the politicians, I suppose.
[Hint: consider what Russia has always called the “nationalities question,” and after that look at a map of the world centred on the USSR.]
So, either you’re going to have the UN legitimising duff regimes and moaning about stuff, or you’re going to have global powers doing the same thing. If you assert that it’s OK for the US to do this right now, you must logically accept that it will be equally OK for the successor great power(s) to do the same thing. Alternatively, you have to come up with a mechanism to prevent the non-Anglospheric powers doing it when the Anglospheric powers no longer have the economic or military muscle to get their way. This would, realistically, require something like a pro-western Son of UN.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“Much of the current problem with militant Islam, for example, springs from the misguided but entirely understandable attempts of the west to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan…”
No it doesn’t, it’s just the latest manifestation of a problem that goes back decades.
You’re wrong.
Much of the Islamist insecurity and inferiority complex came about because of a prolonged period of failure in the face of western opposition. This goes back to the long decline of Ottoman Turkey and lasts up to Afghanistan.
The reasons for the Soviet invasion were multiple and obvious – promoting spread of communism, buffer state against American-backed Pakistan, closer to warm-water ports in the Indian Ocean, etc. An important one was to tread on militant Islam.
It will be recalled that the USSR had a small but growing problem with Islamists in several of the southern republics. It was necessary to deal with this. It could be dealt with internally or by imposing Soviet will externally. The latter would have been more effective, since it would be a clear demonstration of Moscow’s will on the international stage, coupled with the happy coincidence of promoting communism, buffer state, etc, etc. It would also have signalled to the new Iranian regime that the USSR would not tolerate Islamist interference within its own borders. All of that was easily knowable in 1979/1980, and indeed obvious.
Where it became a problem was that the USSR lost. For the first time a couple of centuries, Islam was perceived to have prevailed against European power. THAT is the problem.
Had the USSR won, or at least indefinitely stabilised the situation, Islam would simply have lost yet another battle against the west, another in a long sequence. But Islamist victory (even if bought with American cash and the internal problems of the USSR) gave them a confidence and encouragement they had not had before. That’s where much of the problem comes from – the west enabled Islamism to see that it could actually win. It was a major strategic mistake, for which we still pay.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“Much of the Islamist insecurity and inferiority complex came about because of a prolonged period of failure in the face of western opposition. This goes back to the long decline of Ottoman Turkey and lasts up to Afghanistan.”
Precisely the point that I was making.
Here we go again. The indefatigable Euan Gray technique. Make a statement, then try to pretend it wasn’t what you meant, in the hope of creating a serpentine argument.
Small wonder that you are considered a troll by so many here (with the exception of guy herbert).
Mr Gray says that he believes that “the world has progessed to a stage where, like it or not, some organization like the U.N. is more or less unavoidable”.
So there we have it, a stage theory of history and historical determinism (worthy of my near namesake Karl).
As for control of the internet. Well if there was a world government I doubt it would have much trouble (just as the government of China goes about its vile work reasonably well).
The United States might veto any Security Council resolution concerning setting up the needed enforcement structure (it would pass the General Assembly with ease), but then some American Administration might deide that “the world had progressed to a stage where…..”
On the the Shah of Iran, not a well advised ruler (fiat money inflation, price controls, “White Revolution” development schemes….), but he was better than what came after him – and President Carter undermined the Shah rather than supported his rule.
The United States has a complex history in Latin America, normally giving bad economic advice (certainly not the free market advice it is claimed to give) and sometimes cutting off even the sale of arms at times when a ruler needs them most. The history of Cuba in the late 1950’s might be of interest to Mr Gray.
As for the economic advice, it normally amounts to “land reform” (an economic and environmental mess), and more money for health, education… (i.e. financial collapse).
The case that springs to mind is El Salvador from 1979 to 1983. Nationalization of many large companies, “land reform”, endless spending – and the results were economic collapse and the Communists growing stronger every day.
Only by reversing economic policy, and by going out and killing lots of Reds was the “inevitable” victory of Communism prevented.
Should the United States have cut off all aid to El Salvador because of the “Death Squads”? Well it did cut off military aid to Guatemala on human rights grounds, but the tactics of fighting the war did not become more humane.
Both El Salvador and Guatemala now have multiparty democratic political systems – with socialist parties accepting the results of elections as free and fair. “But the ends do not justify the means, torture and killing are wrong” – quite so.
Whether it is Burke attacking Warren Hastings or Rothbard attacking everyone, it is easy to attack a commander when one has never had command oneself.
It would nice to think I could defeat a secret communist army (many thousands of armed men and women) that had friends in every major institution of the nation and was prepared to kill anybody who stood in its way – and defeat them without ever using torture (to find out where they were) or executing anyone without a fair trial where his guilt had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, I have never done this.
On Afghanistan it is interesting to see Mr Gray joining hands with the late Murry Rothbard in opposing American support for the resistance to the Soviets (which was not the Taliban – the “students” came along later).
When would Mr Gray have supported government action – when the Soviets controlled the whole Middle East? An anarchist would take the position that the correct reply is “never” – the government should never do anything, because the government should not exist. But I have never thought of Mr Gray as a strict Rothbardian anarchist.
Of course Murry Rothbard (as an anarchist) would not have supported the U.N. – but then Rothbard did not have special knowledge of the laws of history, which mean that is inevitable and resistance to it futile.
The U.N. may be a farcical absurdity NOW, but that does not mean that something could not be made of it in the future (especially as the international “liberal” elite treats support of the U.N. concept as a article of religious faith), the best way to prevent future trouble is to kill the U.N. off.
Better a simple of cut off money to a joke organization now, than the possibility of conflict with a serious organization later.
Instapundit has a link to a more comprehensive examination of this situation.
Please excuse the previous post. 1st degree brain fart.
FOR GOD’S SAKE! THE INTERNET WAS INVENTED BY THE USA. IT BELONGS TO THE USA, PERIOD!
Veryretired: I agree with your first post. It is unwise and ignorant to ignore the creeping, strangling tentacles of UN commissions, committees, et al. They work in mysterious, unrelenting, Sherman-like ways. The march to the sea has begun.
And to all others who doubt that the US would cede control to the UN, consider this: Hillary in ’08.
somewhat off the international relations talk of the the last few comments, but I would like to point out the humourous anecdote of how one of the main criticisms against the construction and presence of the Trump world tower (a fine symbol of capitalism and individual achievment) was that this magnificent building was located too close to the much shorter and uglier UN complex. thus, the unocrats and their supporters said, Trumps tower would damage the image of importance and prestige that the bureaucrats complex projected by bieng surrounded by shorter buildings then itself. HAHA! Arrogant bloody prics
No, it bloody well isn’t, for God’s sake. As usual, you’re taking part of someone’s argument, cutting it off at the point it diverges from yours, ignoring the rest and claiming that it’s the same as yours.
The part you seem unable to grasp is that Afghanistan is the critical moment because Islam prevailed. That changed things.
Dearie me. It’s not historical determinism at all, but rather the realisation that you do tend to get some organisation or state or collection of states shaping or trying to shape the general direction of the world. This can be a collection of colonial powers, a single very powerful state, an international forum, etc. It doesn’t have to be something like the UN, but you will have something. It’s not deterministic, it’s just the way the real world works.
They never would have done this, as any strategic analyst worth his salt would have known – and indeed did know. The USSR reached its peak of marginal advantage in the early 1970s when it attained nuclear parity with the west and its economy still more or less worked. However, it stagnated and declined fairly rapidly after that, as was well known in the west by the end of the 70s. It will be recalled that many analysts said unambiguously at the time that the USSR was not as strong as it looked, was decaying, and would collapse. Indeed, Reagan’s strategy was to accelerate this collapse by forcing major increases in military expenditure, so they knew it perfectly well.
The probability of the USSR extending control to the oil-bearing ME was infinitesimal.
Nor has Mr Gray, to be fair. However, there is a grain of truth in most things, and in this case I think Rothbard was right, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes socialists are right, sometimes libertarians are right, sometimes (more often, frankly) conservatives are right. The pragmatist shouldn’t care who promotes the idea, he should care more for whether the idea is correct.
No, of course it isn’t. However, you’ve got to be pretty short-sighted not to see certain trends. NOT trends in the way the world as a whole works, for there are none, but very general trends in the way individual states tend to pursue their political-strategic imperatives. Of course this can be resisted, but it is useful to understand what the trend is before trying to resist it, and this is where an understanding of history can be one of (and only one of) the tools needed.
Very true, which is why we have to be careful with reforming the UN.
Because if we don’t it’s historically inevitable that the UN will present problems? Only joking.
If you advocate the winding up of the UN, you have to consider what will take its place. Right now, the US can enforce order, but the US will not be the dominant power for ever, and what happens when someone else – India? China? Brazil? – steps up to the plate? If you don’t have a UN or some such thing, you would be dependent on the good will of the global powers, just as now (without a UN) the rest of the world is dependent on the good will of the US.
Some naive people argue that the US will ALWAYS be the dominant military and economic power. This is highly unlikely, as a glance at history will show – every single power in the world without exception has risen to a peak and then fallen. This is not historically inevitable, of course, and it is quite possible in theory for a state to achieve and maintain advantage over all others. However, no state has ever done it yet, so one has to be sceptical.
EG
Euan, do I understand you to say that the West should not have helped the Afghans in the 80s because winning against the Russians gave the Islamists a morale boost ?
Surely the Russian withdrawal was a symptom of the collapse of the Soviet empire. It would have happened no matter what the West did for the Mujahideen.
*shudder* Holy piss. Goddamn, there goes my sleep tonight. 🙁
I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I think the failure in Afghanistan was only partly symptomatic of a wider failure, and in part it was a contributory factor in that wider failure. Had the USSR not been simultaneously trying to keep up with American defence expenditure, it could have focused more on the Afghan problem.
Had the west had the foresight to realise that militant Islam was a bigger and more widespread threat than communism (as people were warning at the time), it might have actually helped the USSR behind the scenes. This could have made a huge difference to the current situation:
1. All else being equal, the USSR would still have collapsed, perhaps a decade or so later than it actually did, due to economic failure.
1a. Notwithstanding that, the west could have used assistance in Afghanistan as a lever for requiring liberalisation in the USSR. Played properly, this could have resulted in a semi- social democratic Russian confederation within the Soviet borders. A stretch, but a useful goal to aim for and better for western interests than the collection of corrupt dynastic thugocracies that now exist.
2. Militant Islam would have been deal a very serious blow in the form of yet another defeat when faced with European power. In such circumstances, it is questionable whether such as the Taliban or AQ would even have come into existence.
3. Preservation, or at least controlled decay, of the USSR would have obviated the sudden collapse of the global balance of power. This collapse of the balance of power was and remains the cause of instability in the general Middle East. It is a balance of power that keeps the peace, not a single dominant power nor a global discussion forum. The world is still unbalanced, although we are fortunate that the single dominant power is relatively benign.
4. There would be no talk of reforming and enhancing the UN, because the major powers would still be balancing things and the UN would remain the fig leaf over the conscience of the world.
None of that happened, of course, largely because of a simplistic good versus evil view of global relations that prevailed (and to an extent still does prevail) in Washington.
It has always been my view that the west should not merely have not supported the Islamonutters in Afghanistan, it should have actively supported the USSR in the suppression of Islamism. I said this at the time, and nothing I have seen in the intervening quarter century has changed my view that this would have been the best strategic course for the west to pursue.
Sometimes it pays to be choosy about allies. Sometimes your putative enemy shares the same interests you do, and in such a case it is often wise to cooperate in certain spheres.
EG
Somehow, I can’t see Reagan telling the Soviets to get out of Central Europe, but to do what they liked in Central Asia.
When you refer to “semi- social democratic Russian confederation”, I assume you mean the usual European model of capitalism with a relatively high burden of statists. This is still capitalism, and Russia would still have had to make the transition from their previous system. While we can agree that we wish their transition had run differently than it did, I am not convinced it could have been done. There were, as ever, far too many interests against any change for change to have happened without a crisis.
I don’t see why you are so keen on a balance of power approach. It didn’t do a lot of good for a large number of third world countries which became pawns in the global game. Current inhabitants of Darfur might agree with me.
Indeed not, but a more astute president might have done something differently. And it is not a black and white case as you try to present.
Eventually, yes.
Like in China? These things can and do happen, you know.
Because it’s how the world works, basically. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we might like it to be.
The balance shifts continually, of course, as countries get more and less powerful – something many, especially the end-of-history idiots, don’t quite seem to understand. The important thing is not a specific balance, but the need for balance as a principle.
The alternatives are either to depend on a benign single power (which will in time decline as all do) or some sort of supranational authority.
EG
Euan: Because it’s how the world works, basically. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we might like it to be.
Interesting, as your analysis seems to be a realist one and completely ignores the ideological character of US foreign policy. Sometimes the US does deal with the world as we’d like it to be, and sometimes this actually works. (We’re exceptional that way.)
On another point, I think the steady balance of power scenario and the uni-polar one are both pretty stable. If the US faced the choice of leaping from the first to the second situation, with us being that sole superpower, why wouldn’t we? Especially considering the nature of the old balancing power, which you don’t in fact consider.
One more point: the UN currently has a mixed record of constraining the US, but would it be effective at all against a dominant China? Seems to me that such a world body would be most effective at constraining those dominant powers that require it the least.
Why does the UN want to control the internet?
1. So they can charge you money to use it. They have been after a global tax for a long time.
2. So they can control what you say and do with it. Since the UN is made up of people that want to help everyone, they will of course start by helping us eliminate personal weapons advertisements and info. Then they will help us grow by eliminating hate speach against various political entities. Of course, there is a fine line between political criticism and hate speach, so they will designate an international panel to determine what speach is acceptable. Well the international body wouldn’t be truly international unless the panel will be rotated so that such eminetly qualified free speach advocates like China, Syria, or Iran are entitled to chair the acceptable speach committee.
UN internet. No thanks. I prefer the commercial internet.
If the UN and communist China doesn’t like our free and global internet, they don’t have to use it. They can invest their own money and start their own internet anytime. It will be interesting to see which internet the world chooses if they are allowed to make the choice.
Euan :
Hmmm. What do you have in mind ?
I’m really not sure I would like to use China as an example of what Gorbachev should have done. As you will recall, he got locked up in his dacha when a bunch of apparatchiks decided they had had enough perestroiking and tried to take over. There could have been a Tiananmen in Red Square, but the Red Army didn’t want to play, and good for them.
This is an observation
Agreed
This is not an observation, it is an aspiration. I still don’t understand why you are so keen on it.
Brian O’Connell :
Not totally exceptional, I hope. The Brits have done the decent thing, here and there.
No, it doesn’t. It complains about the ideological character of US foreign policy where that ideology is allowed to get in the way of sound strategy.
No, it doesn’t. It deals with the world as it is and tries to go from there to where it would like it to be. This is fine – all states do this – but again it is a problem when ideology gets in the way and the world gets treated as if it were ALREADY the way you’d like it to be, which was my point.
America is not exceptional in any way whatsoever compared to all the other great powers that have ever existed. It has a relatively high degree of personal freedom, a relatively free economy and a willingness to use its power to shape the world. So did Britain at the equivalent stage of its progress. So did Rome. There is nothing new here.
There isn’t a “steady balance.” There is a shifting balance. And it is stable, provided it doesn’t shift too quickly or too radically. A unipolar scenario is only as stable as the pole, as it were.
In the particular circumstances of today, the US is of course a stable nation, BUT it is going to get relatively weaker over the ensuing decades, at the same time as countries like China, India and Brazil are going to get relatively stronger. Thus a multipolar balance, being pretty much the natural order of things, is going to be established soon enough.
Because it is irrelevant in the case where direct conflict is extremely unlikely, as in the Cold War, and especially after the early 70s when both sides were equally heavily armed. Again, though, ideology and self-serving paranoid fantasy intrude, the world is seen in black and white terms and strategy will sooner or later suffer.
I think you’re right there. However, pretty much every major power ignores or circumvents the UN when it feels it has to. The USSR ignored it when it needed to support its Arab clients in the Middle East, just as the US ignores it when it needs to support its Israeli client in the Middle East. Is not the problem more that, say, China would feel the need to ignore the UN more than America would?
In the particular case of China, it depends how far China wants to go. So far it has restricted itself to throwing its weight around its periphery, over Taiwan, Vietnam, the Spratlys, probing Japanese defences, etc. It SAYS this is all it is going to do, but…who knows? Territorial expansion and military power tends to follow trade. We’ll see.
Getting back to the old balance of power, one should note the tension between resource hungry China and resource rich but cash strapped Russia. My own view is that it would be sensible long term strategy to be helpful to Moscow right now since this would prepare a potential future balance in Asia. Russia is extending its influence into the Asian republics again, and it should not be deterred from this course. In order to do this it will be necessary for the west and in particular Europe to stop antagonising Moscow and start looking at where our interests lie – a stable world.
This actually works for both, because Russia needs money and a third (and growing) of Europe’s energy comes from Russia.
EG
Then please explain exactly how America is exceptional in relation to all other great powers that have existed.
EG
The point was made that the transition from communism to capitalism cannot be achieved without crisis. My point in reply was that this is not so, since China has managed it without counter-revolution or major crisis. So, for that matter, has Vietnam. There is no reason in principle why the USSR could not also have done so. In fact, it nearly did.
Yes, but Gorbachev left on holiday at a critical moment, just before the signature of a new Union treaty that would have fundamentally altered the nature of the USSR. This was stupid, and there was no sound reason to do it. The upshot was that the USSR, instead of reforming as China and Vietnam did, actually collapsed. All because Gorbachev didn’t wait two weeks before taking a holiday.
EG
It complains about the ideological character of US foreign policy where that ideology is allowed to get in the way of sound strategy.
Well that’s just it. You see ideology getting in the way of sound strategy (aka realism) while many (most?) Americans see realism, or pragmatic concerns, material interests, etc., as getting in the way of our ideology, from a foreign policy perspective. For Americans, the ideological imperative is as important as any power consideration. That’s why we allow it to get in the way of a sound realist foreign policy in the first place.
I guess I’d have been clearer if I wrote that you ignore the value that Americans place on the ideological character of US foriegn policy. We will sometimes forgo the optimal power outcome if we have a reasonable chance to arrive at a better ideological outcome.
Also, I would suggest that if a uni-polar world is only as stable as its pole, then a balance-of-power scenario is only as stable as the difference between its poles: no better and perhaps worse. I’d add that a multi-polar world (more than 1 or 2) is the least stable of all.
In any event, your devotion to stability is misplaced. The US is constant revolution, which is one of the reasons why so many hate or resent us.
fFreddy: I was being a bit snarky with the exceptionalism bit (hence the parentheses) because I know that this riles realists. Of course much of what we Americans believe came from the Brits. I’ll mention the British abolition of slavery as one of Britain’s finest moments, something that the US had to have a civil war to settle.
That’s an overly simplistic way of looking at it. The differences continually change as interests develop, are satisfied or are frustrated, and so on. It’s inherently more stable than a unipolar situation, because a relief of pressure in one sphere is generally countered by increasing pressure in another. In a unipolar world, there is nothing to counter the shifting interests of the pole, and this can often lead to instability.
I think you’re quite wrong here. In fact, multipolar balances are the most stable of all PROVIDED fixed alliances are avoided. Such a multipolar balance kept the peace between the global powers from Waterloo to Sarajevo, its shifting and temporary alliances ensuring relative stability and preventing minor spats escalating to large scale global warfare. This started to fail when fixed alliances – the Entente Cordiale and then the Triple Entente, for example – upset the multipolar balance and created instead a bipolar balance between the Teutonic powers and everyone else.
No, it isn’t. It is a stable state progressing, as most western states have, from a hands-off merchant economy to a welfarist partially managed economy. This is evolution, not revolution.
Wrong again. One of the major reasons why so many hate America is that they object to being compelled to adopt what are to them fundamentally alien ways which do not obviously benefit them. A further reason is the American insistence in assuming, in the face of widespread evidence to the contrary, that the whole world wants to be democratic, individualistic and capitalistic, and then imposing this sometimes at gunpoint. Ideology getting in the way of strategy again, you see.
I don’t doubt the good intention of America in this respect, but I do deprecate its naivete.
EG
That’s an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
Well, it is blog comments.
In fact, multipolar balances are the most stable of all PROVIDED fixed alliances are avoided. Such a multipolar balance kept the peace between the global powers from Waterloo to Sarajevo….
Quite a proviso. I’d argue that the multipolar situation devolved into a bipolar one, inevitably. It was this change-over that provided the instability.
This is evolution, not revolution.
The US is revolutionary in military, cultural, economic, and political terms. These are constantly in flux. Think of the changes in the Roman empire in its 500+ years vs. the US in its 200+. Our changes are even accelerating. This is capitalism run by the rabble. Your welfarist managed economy describes only a small aspect of the US, and isn’t usefully descriptive at all.
One of the major reasons why so many hate America is that they object to being compelled to adopt what are to them fundamentally alien ways which do not obviously benefit them.
Oy. Are you talking about Kyoto or the UN? Only elites use that rationale.
The UN, getting back to the original post, represents the elites in each country, not the people. In non-democratic countries, the government is the elite. The UN represents all the world’s governments, not all the world’s people. That’s why any UN body is bound to be despotic, but particularly the UN body in charge of freedom of speech (i.e., the internet). Americans will die before we let the UN control it.
Ideology getting in the way of strategy again, you see.
Yes, that’s the point.
I don’t doubt the good intention of America in this respect, but I do deprecate its naivete.
In a hundred years we’ll know for sure who was really being naive. Right now I think it’s you.
Not really. It happens all the time at all levels of human society from the village to the state to the relations between states. Alliances continually shift and change. The error is to think that fixed and permanent alliances can be made.
You could equally say that these things are constantly in flux in pretty much every state, since nothing stays the same forever. If the US is revolutionary in this sense, so is every other state.
Hardly. It’s increasingly capitalism regulated by the state, insecure about increasing foreign competition and foreign ownership of the economy. This is a natural reaction and has been seen many times before in other states as native industry declines in the face of increasing competition. America is, like other states, going down this road and it only appears not to be because it has not yet travelled as far down it as, say, the European states.
In Britain in the latter 19th century, we too had capitalism run by the rabble, to use your phrase. We don’t any more. America has had it, and is changing too, for exactly the same reasons. These things happen. America is not unique or exceptional in this respect.
No, I’m talking about American foreign policy as you well know. However, it’s always nice to be considered part of an elite….
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot good about America. But one of the bad things is the assumption that what works for America is the natural way of things and that it will necessarily work for everyone else too. This is, unfortunately, wrong, and what is even more unfortunate is that American policy seems designed to insist that this American way be exported to others whether they want it or not, whether it is appropriate or not, and whether or not it has to be exported by force. This causes resentment.
True, and it inevitably will since it is made up of government representatives. State policy, although guided in most of the west by the plebian tribunes, is essentially formulated and implemented by the patricians – the elites. This is how governments work the world over.
And you could argue equally that the US ambassador to the UN represents the US government, not the US people (de facto if not strictly de jure). The UN is a forum for governments and does not pretend to be an international parliament.
The cure for that, if we are going to have some form of UN, is to make it an international parliament.
Look at the structure of the state in America. You have county governments, then state governments, then the federal government. You could add on top of that an international parliament, made up of elected representatives from each member nation. You could have both a house of international representatives, and an international senate, with say two elected members for each member nation. Each member nation could be required to hold a free and fair national vote on joining (i.e. ratifying the constitution) and would be compelled to institute a system of republican government (in the sense the word is used in the US constitution).
In America, the powers of the federal government are restricted with most authority being possessed by the several states. So you could have a similar thing for the UN, with most authority being reserved to the several member nations and the UN acting only in matters between the nations. This is bascially what the UN is intended to do, but since it is not democratic and, more importantly, is open to all nations you tend to get ridiculous decisions.
Doing this would give a global government on the US model, democratic and limited. It would be illogical for America to object to this, since it would then be objecting to exactly the same principles which make up its own government.
On the international stage, the US would then have the same relative clout as each of the several states of the union have now. This would in practice be objected to, not because of the general principle (which is identical to the principle of the government of the US), but because foreign states would be involved.
That amounts to no more than might is right. If you accept that it’s ok for the US to export its ideology, then you must accept that it is equally ok for other states – e.g. the USSR or China – to export their ideology, and may the strongest man win. You cannot object to the export of armed communist revolution if you approve of the export of democracy-n-markets at gunpoint. Same principle, different ideology. If you do object, then all you are saying is that your ideology is the correct one, which is itself an ideological position not susceptible to logic. And it is exactly the same ideological position adopted by the communist revolutionary.
I don’t object to might is right as state policy. This is how the world has worked for almost all of its history, after all. However, I don’t think you can dress it up in some higher morality – it is, simply, that you do what you do because you can and because you want to. That’s fine, just leave out the moralising.
Right now, we can tell who reads history and who doesn’t. In 100 years, America will not be the dominant global power. There may be a global government, there may be a balance between multiple states, who knows? But the certainty is there will not be America dominating the world. I suspect the global government scenario is the most likely in the long term.
Whether the idea of a liberal free market democracy survives is another question. I think it will, but not in its current form.
EG
How odd that the people whose ideology drove them to view the Soviet Union as on equal moral ground as the United States were considered “realists” and the people (the Reagan administration) who saw the world as it REALLY existed (that the Soviet Union was an evil empire that could be defeated by confronting it instead of appeasing it) are considered “ideologues”.
What an odd, odd world.
Bugger morality. Foreign policy is driven by state interest.
The use of Islamist terrorists to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan has replaced one rational enemy with another, and far more insidious, irrational one taking its inspiration not from a dead German theorist but from holy writ. Why? Because people took a moral view of foreign policy and decided the USSR was an evil empire that had to be defeated. And this is progress how, exactly?
The same people who supported the idea that the USSR was an evil empire also said that it was doomed, couldn’t succeed, on verge of collapse, weaker than it looks, etc. Funny, then, that they needed to talk up the evil empire bit to go on a moral crusade to rid the world of this terror (which was going to collapse any day, but forget we said that).
It IS ideological to let morality get in the way of state interest. And look what happens when you do it.
EG
Yikes. A UN-controlled internet would be a disaster!
I tell you as a techie, first a “fragmented root” already exists (eg: there’s OpenNIC which grants their own root names, etc). Second, a fragmented root which you can’t bypass is inconcievable as DNS is currently designed. All it takes is Joe User configuring their machine with a fall-back DNS server being some public box the USA. You’d better believe the “protected” Brazilian schoolkids will cotton on to this in double-quick time.
Yup. Strictly speaking, nobody is compelled to use the currently predominant DNS system, if someone wants to set up alternate root nameservers, there’s nothing preventing anyone from using them.
I hear China is already doing exactly that so they can have chinese-character domain names. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if other countries that didn’t use the roman alphabet weren’t doing so as well.
The UN has about as much of a chance of siezing control of the internet as it does of siezing control of my toilet.
The core thing the UN doesn’t understand about the internet, is that apart from IP there exists no mandatory infrastructure. If they fuck up the original root DNS, people will just switch to another set of roots. It’s perfect competition out there.
Yup.
On a more practical level, if the UN, EU, China, etc are unhappy about the US’s influence within the current internet management [cough] structure, they can bloody well build their own internet and see who wants to connect to it.
Mr Gray thinks that we should “bugger morality”.
In which case, why should we not rob, kill (or indeed “bugger”) Mr Gray if we happen to like doing such things? If morality does not exist – or at least is not worthy of consideration.
The Royal Navy fought the slave trade round the world for a hundred years, this may not have done British “national interest” much good (indeed it may have done it harm), and Britian may get no thanks from a world that chooses to remember our own slave trade – but not our campaign against the slave trade.
But for people who do not believe in “bugger morality” the efforts of the Royal Navy were the correct thing to do.
Mr Gray might say that the saving of south Korea from the Communists did not serve American national interests (and he would be quite right), and he might also say that the young generation of the Republic of Korea are not greatful to the United States (and he would be correct again). Just as if Ameican efforts had worked in the case of the Republic of Vietnam I doubt that there would be any gratitude from young citizens of this country.
People in Western Europe (Mr Gray might point out) do not thank the United States for their liberation from Nazi Germany or for protecting them for 60 years against Soviet Russia (and as Senator Robert Taft, and many others, pointed out the costs of all this are far greater than any gains – so in terms of the “national interest” it should not have been done).
However, (and at this point Mr Gray will not understand) the fact that a nation does not benefit from a good action, and the fact that people will (for example) absurdly credit the E.U. (rather than the United States military) for 60 years of peace in Western Europe IS NOT RELEVANT.
Good actions seldom benefit those who do them, this does not alter the fact that they should be done.
As for Mr Gray’s suggestions.
The Soviets could not have taken over the Middle East – so helping people resist them in Afghanistan was pointless.
And if the Soviets had taken over the Middle East Mr Gray would say that their victory was inevtiable and there was nothing we could have done to stop it.
What will “replace” the U.N. – why should anything replace this disgusting organization?
As for what will control China or India – well if the West declines to such a point that China is a threat I am certain the U.N. will be of no help to us.
America is another empire like Rome.
That something is often said does not prevent it from being false.
America does not have colonies that pay it taxes, indeed its overseas commitments cost it money. In short it (contrary to all the clever “experts”) is not an empire at all.
As for specifc differences between America and Rome. Well the factor slavery (whilst it can be overstated in the case of Rome) is still important.
As is the fact that America is still an armed society. Rome (after Augustus) placed a monopoly of arms in the army – thus meaning both that military dictatorship became the norm (although the Senate did elect some Emperors) and that, if the army was ever destroyed, there was nothing stopping the people being conquered by barbarians.
Hannibal smashed army after army, but Carthage still found it could not rule Italy (or even defeat Rome). But the Goths had little trouble ruling a population that had been disarmed for centuries.
America may be in a “late Republican period” a time of high government spending and regulations (bread and games), but the Republic has not yet fallen.
Then there is the matter of technology. Modern taxes and regulations (and a joke fiat money financial system) may mean that technological development is slower than it otherwise would be.
But this is still very different from the Empire where techological development almost ground to a halt, and where Emperiors like Tiberious just executed inventors who came up with things (such as shatter resistant glass) that they did not happen to like.
Chinese Emperors might (to give two examples seperated by centuries) nationalize the iron industry, or ban ships with more than two masts – but it is hard to see an American President having such power.
Of course by “great power” Mr Gray may mean that America is what Britian might have been in the 19th century – if Britian had not had an Empire.
Britian would still have been the greatest manufacturing nation in the world (till America overtook it in the 1890’s), and it would have had widespread influence in the world (even without formal colonies).
Of course the rise of modern statism (all over the West) means that manufactuing industry in the United States is burdened by levels of taxation and regulation that would be almost unthinkable in the 19th century.
It is a wonder that even with modern technology the economy manages to withstand it.
Here I agree with Mr Gray. As military power (in the end) depends on economic power, the burden of the modern Welfare State (plus credit bubble financial system and so on) means that the power of the United States (on which the West depends) is in peril.
Whether the United States can free itself from such things as the “entitlement programs” is the central question our civilization faces.
I am not optimistic.
I do believe that if a single Western nation could free itself from the Welfare State other nations would follow its exaple – but I see little prospect of any Western nation turning against the Wefare State.
Therefore a period of fanancial brakedown would seem likely.
I do not what will emerge from this financial brakedown.
But I do know that talk of military burdens or imports from China miss the point that the central problems of the United States (like those of all Western Nations) are domestic – namely the Welfare State, and a credit bubble financial system.
Mr Gray has stated that he regards world government as the most likely option over the next hundred years.
If this is the case then he not wonder if what is left of free market civilization survives. If there was only one government (nowhere for people to flee to) then despotism is the natural result. The idea of a “World Parliament” makes no sense, as (given modern ideology) it would simply give rise to demands for a global welfare state – which would bankrupt itself almost at once. Democracy (at least representative demorcracy) can only work in the long term if the political parties who are likely to get a majority of the votes are opposed to such things as entitlement programs and regulations as a response to every problem.
As for “current form” the laws of political economy do not change with time or place, they were the same in the stone age as they are now. The vast governments we have now (with there endless spending and regulations) mean that we are poorer than would otherwise be. Technological advance does mean that we do not collapse into mass starvation at once (as we would have done had people tried government of this size in the 19th century), but the do not alter the fact that we are poorer than we would otherwise have been.
I suspect that the late Australian economist Colin Clark was correct in thinking that (over the long term) any government that takes more that about a quarter of output will undermine civil society. However, I may be mistaken and that a somewhat higher level of statism is compatible with long term survival (although surely not the levels of statism we have now).
To return to the idea of World Government.
Of course such a government would eventually collapse, but it might not do so for quite a long time. There is also the problem of the very large population of the earth, under global collectivism only a small fraction of that population could survive (although I doubt that would bother the powers that be).
Just as the Soviet Union would have indeed eventually collapsed even if it had taken over the whole world (as it intended to do), but this would not have been a great comfort to the survivors trying to scratch a living after the collapse of civilization.
For the record nobody here is saying that the United States will “dominate the world” for ever. Indeed the United States has never “dominated the world” or tried to do so – if it had the 1940’s would have been the time to try (the U.S. produced about half of the word’s output and had an atomic monopoly.
Mr Gray seems to have been infected with the AntiAmericanism of the Daily Mail sort.
Paul,
Amidst the selective misunderstandings (presumably intentional), highly selective view of history, you do raise some interesting points which would take up too much space to address here. I will post a reply elsewhere when I have the time to write it.
EG