|
The US Unipolar World
The monopoly of world power by one country, like that of the US and its alliance, comes at the expense of the entire world's equality, diversity, stability, progress, and justice—harnessing the powers of the more legitimate but ill-founded UN, constraining its decision and action, thus failing to represent all world countries and citizens fairly or solve their problems as a "world government" should. As for world unipolarity's effect on the US itself, it causes slow indirect damage culminating at the inevitable moment of "power re-balance" of the globe, unless the US steps back willfully and gradually to share power with others. It increases tension within and pressure on the US, by the very concentration of power it seeks:
1. Cultural Effects• The English language the UK had spread worldwide facilitated later the cultural invasion of American values and influence over world media. It gradually grew into the world's favorite lingua franca, used by everyone, with/without colonial ties with Britain. This was a "gift" from history, having nothing to do with the English language itself. Accordingly it gave advantage to English-speaking countries, many of which became more allied in the US camp. Through such universal vessel many cultural values have traveled, enticing world's inhabitants and best "brains" to immigrate to the country they heard and read most about, in English media, academia or literature. It added "brain power" to the already rich US, while causing brain drain elsewhere in the world. The damage of unipolarity is much similar to that of urban CENTRALIZATION, where one city receives the best services, attention, and population. Many grew passionate about America and American culture, while losing interest in learning about their own countries, or countries they have more interests and common grounds with, to understand their particular needs to satisfy and resources to use. Instead, they went with the flow (media, relatives, friends, etc.), flocking to the central/polar country everyone is gravitated towards, while deserting their own countries (their peoples, cultures, resources, projects, plans, dreams, etc.). Even those left at home, esp. in despotic regimes in alliance with the US, being purposely depoliticized by their leaders, felt useless and alienated in their own home country. • The US uses various logical fallacies worldwide "appealing" to people's passion for modern technology, lifestyles, arts, culture, etc. at the expense of their reason, leaving many baffled, confused, unable to grasp that such country they love could have committed mistakes and crimes worldwide, despite being the one who also presented to humanity more achievements in modern times than any other country. The crimes of the US ruling elite are purposely hidden behind the goodness of other Americans & American establishments, many of whom aren't involved in or even aware of their country's mistake, because the US-based world media-machine damages the brains of its people first and foremost. • The illegal marriage between "media & state" or "capital & state" is as dangerous as that of "church & state"—all depriving government of leadership's neutrality. The rising power of telecommunication, esp. the new INTERNET technologies, when fallen into the hands of a country's intelligence becomes extremely dangerous. The enormous records of humanity's personal data and online behavior owned by GIANT corporations operating search engines, email, e-commerce and social media, when illicitly working with or monitored by a government apparatus, like the CIA, augment the latter's power to unimaginable degrees, surpassing any other US establishment or any other country. • The US keeps propagating certain American values and privileges it possesses, that it promptly lists in every "resume" for international affairs, to justify its superiority and interference in other countries. Yet there are other sides of the liberal, progressive, democratic, diverse, rich American melting pot and God-blessed land, for long receiving settlers, inspiring citizens worldwide, and disappointing others. After its 20th century glory, it slowed down in the rate of scientific progress, made less civil rights achievements, lost much control over its demographic diversity, and grew more materialistic and ruled by large national/multinational corporations than by people themselves. Ironically, America's democracy stands in contrast with its overseas "autocracy" toward other countries, making such democracy hypocritical, incomplete, and unappealing to those the US wants to subdue or even impress. Democracy is a whole that doesn't exist in a vacuum. One cannot be democratic only toward fellow countrymen/tribesmen/family members, and undemocratic toward the rest. Furthermore, foreign policy is rarely driven by pure altruism; nation-states act primarily out of strategic self-interest rather than a disinterested desire to export prosperity. While democracy and human rights are noble ideals, they remain secondary to the fundamental necessity of basic security and statehood, without which civil order collapses. When external powers rush to force immediate political restructuring on foreign societies without establishing baseline stability and security, the outcome is rarely a flourishing democracy—it is destructive state failure: civil wars, millions killed and displaced, armies depleted, and states divided and fallen. In this manner, many countries were ruined: Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. 2. Physical Effects• The US influence on world politics has been growing ever since America's discovery and throughout its relatively "young" age. However, it emerged as the world only superpower after the end of Cold War and USSR dissolution, even amounting to a hyper-power for more than a decade afterwards, until the EU and China caught up, along with post-communism Russia. Unfortunately, the EU chose to partake in world unipolarity by joining the US and asserting its hegemony, rather than ally with the other superpowers to create a more balanced bipolar world, or even better ally with secondary powers to create a multipolar world. Other countries followed suit too, in an almost "tribal" manner—Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Turkey, Qatar, etc.—each paying a different tribute to the world's tribe Head (the self-elected Strongman), and playing a different role "assigned" to it according to status and skill. There lies within the Superpower's frontiers, the world CENTER of "command, politics, military, technology, media, and even language." There reside its decision-makers, happy with the unipolar world they created then messed up, uninterested to change, share or move elsewhere to "de-centralize" and balance its power for the sake of other marginalized and less powerful countries. Many states pusillanimously chose to follow and "not" challenge the Superpower, becoming mere satellite states turning in its orbit, rather than escape yet face its anger and media smear campaign (for leaving "us" and joining "them" evil others), and, above all, its UN-orchestrated sanctions and international isolation, joining the Defectors Club (Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, etc.) many of which, after long standing their ground or allying with other powers, the US sheepishly re-cajoles, contradicting its previous code of ethics, if any. • No code except self-interest drives the US actions, that goes beyond basic existential needs to inessential greed, which had plagued many empires before, whose vanity, decadence and oppression led to their demise. By the very code, it condones the horrendous crimes of its allies while crying foul at those struggling for their fundamental right of life and statehood, before any other secondary human rights it propagates, mainly as a pretext to interfere in other countries and hide its colonial motives behind. It claims to democratize others just as old colonialists claimed to civilize and modernize native citizens and aborigines, whom they later killed tens of millions of. Worse still, major power projection has historically intersected with forced displacements and severe demographic shifts that official narratives often downplayed—from the tragic, systematic displacement of Native American populations during westward expansion to unwavering diplomatic and military backing for controversial territorial actions in modern regional conflicts. In the contemporary era, such influence is frequently exercised remotely without traditional land invasions, leveraging strategic partnerships, economic leverage, and information warfare. What colonialists or neo-colonialists did, e.g. in the Middle East or Central Asia, is no different from what any other marauding tribes would do: Tartars, pirates, or even swarms of locusts, all having the same goal. • The US had inherited much of Britain's colonial legacy worldwide. Hadn't it been for its strong ties with the British Empire, it would have been a strong/important country only, not a superpower. The transition from British colonialism to American neo-colonialism went quietly, unsuspected by most world peoples who were still in euphoria of liberation from old-fashioned military occupation and happily joining the US-based colonialist-charted United Nations as free sovereign states (not its predecessor, the League of Nations, that the US never joined or liked). Many of the countries that gained their independence from Britain had American military bases installed on their land "for protection." This inevitably influenced the decision making and sovereignty of such countries, as well as their neighbors. Normally, countries would have their own armies, an alliance of armies with common interests/threats, or a neutral multinational force, but not "a" foreign country's army. Even advanced countries like Japan or Korea are not as independent or pacifist as they seem, because they are militarily protected by and allied with the US, that in turn hoards its bases around China and Russia. This feverish race and insatiable US advancement left no poorer victims than the internationally isolated people in N. Korea, dragged into other countries' conflicts as is the fate of similar crossroad states standing in the way of a superpower's ambitions: Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, etc. When N. Korea refused to allow US bases on its soil—unlike its southern neighbor—and rejected an alliance with a distant power at the expense of China, with whom it shares immediate geographical and cultural ties, it resisted the broader reach of US global expansion. Yet this strategic crossroad left a profound human cost: the tragedy of the North Korean people, caught in the vice of superpower rivalry while living under the yoke of an isolated, militarized leadership that turns to nuclear deterrence to ward off perceived predators. With the rise of US power, the Warsaw Pact had ended and NATO's power increased, even surpassing the more legitimate power-balanced multinational UN forces. This greatly harmed Russia, China and other world countries not in the US-EU alliance: Russia lost Eastern Europe allies and even former Soviet States; China became surrounded by US bases along the Pacific and Central Asia; and worse, many world countries were literally ruined by NATO and US intrusion. • The rich Indian land of the US combined with its desperate/enthusiastic/gifted immigrants, distributed fairly enough across its vast space, had resulted in great utilization of US resources and sped up nation-wide development. That was easier for such a rich, newly-planned, sparsely- inhabited country, than any other. However, this didn't satisfy the ambitions of US politicians, nor the Europeans America owes its existence to. After two world wars the US became the good son Europe could depend on. Both inched closer, increasing world bipolarity "then" vis-à-vis the communist camp, before the latter's division and dominance of the unipolar world. The US-EU alliance is manifested by their shared defense (shared NATO forces, anti-missile shield & nuclear heads), bilateral trade agreements (at the expense of weaker treaty member states, small companies, and consumer's rights), and shared views, decisions and interests in critical international issues (as in the ill-founded Security Council where the UK, France & the US have a permanent veto majority). As nascent regional powers began to emerge and the hyper-power's golden age began to eclipse, it launched a far more aggressive intervention in 2003 by invading Iraq—bypassing international consensus to dismantle a major regional army and reassert its geopolitical footing. While critics debated the underlying motives and strategic intelligence behind post-9/11 military campaigns, the real-world outcome was undeniable: a deliberate weakening of state institutions that left an entire region fractured. • Even when a country has no US military bases on its soil, it could suffer the Superpower's monopoly of military and intelligence technology, restricted from receiving any from elsewhere, unless it was diplomatically prudent enough to ally with various powers and diversify its sources. Examples of monopolized countries are most Middle-Eastern Arab countries, from mid-1970's till mid-2010's, whose alliance the US won easily, as well as the billions they pay for importing and using US weapons. Worse still, when a state rebuffs foreign alignment, dominant powers often deploy sophisticated intelligence apparatuses, sympathetic media echo chambers, and persistent political pressure to undermine that state's institutional stability. By stoking latent ethnic, religious, or political divisions and sponsoring anti-state factions, external actors can inadvertently trigger internal fragmentation—effectively weakening a rival state from within without committing ground forces. This needn't be done directly or immediately, as in typical military invasion that would be internationally condemned, financially costly, and strategically complex. Even when the Superpower resorts to physical invasion, it uses deception to do so under different pretexts: 1. International "intervention," with or without the UN's or allies' acceptance, to overthrow a country's regime or stop an activity/progress against its interests (developing biological/nuclear weapons). 2. Or it does so remotely, in the name of democracy, human rights, modernization, globalization, etc. This is hypocritical and contradictory, because—the US already cooperates with other non-democratic regimes; it cooperates with countries that own such weapons; and it's silent about human rights abuses committed elsewhere in the world. *** It's ironic how the US is truly a model of decentralization, democracy, and scientific research "at home," yet it's diligently working against world decentralization, a fairly elected UN or an empirically tested UN charter. It puts itself above the UN, smothering its voice and playing its role of world policeman, e.g. by sending its own military bases around the globe instead of the UN (like an inapt policeman kicking away his more qualified colleague, to receive EXTRA benefits along with what he already has, gaining undeserved rewards, possessions, and appreciation, at the expense of others' basic needs and LIVES). None of the above credentials could give the US its over-reaching worldwide power, without its colonial legacy it has inherited from Britain, since many other countries are also new, rich, diverse, liberal, democratic, etc. but having been tied instead with weaker or farther powers. Thus, like its predecessor, the US uses other unethical means. By "power abuse, media control, UN influence, and worldwide interference, monopoly and 'bullying,'" the US rules the world. Unchecked power is a misused power, until a world government (a restructured UN) is formed and equal powers emerge, for a better, balanced, multipolar world.
A Multipolar World Benefits | A Multipolar World Challenges Understanding Patriotism | Democracy Abuse | Reclaiming America
|