But the Bush administration’s policy of “strike first” is more like “Talk loudly and get in everyone’s face.” For America’s allies, the new Bush Doctrine of attacking people before they attack us, known as “first strike,” is another example of a bull-in-a-china shop approach to world affairs.
This year, in late August 2002, the United Nations will hold the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), an international conference in Johannesburg, South Africa, ostensibly to create a new model of sustainable development that integrates economic development, social justice, and environmental imperatives. WSSD is supposed to be a ten year follow-up and implementation conference to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on Environment and Development–thus, its other name, “Rio plus 10.” In the Preparatory Committee (PrepComm) meetings that have preceded WSSD, (the latest in Bali, Indonesia held in late May through early June) a common theme has emerged–the United States government is bound and determined to undermine, overthrow, and sabotage any international treaties, agreements, and conferences that it believes restrict its sovereignty in any way as the world’s rogue superpower.
The Middle East has always been a place where illusion paves the road to disaster. In 1095, Pope Urban’s religious mania launched the crusades. In 1915, Winston Churchill’s arrogance led to the WWI bloodbath at Gallipoli. Illusion tends to be a deadly business in those parts. And once again, illusions are about to plunge the Middle East into catastrophe.
Corporate corruption is a “moral cancer that … is threatening this great system and our economic health.” These “sins of omission, malfeasance and misfeasance” are “eroding shareholder value for all corporations and public confidence in critical elements of our economic system.” This is a “betrayal of capitalism” in which the “most fundamental principles of our market system were being flouted.”
The Bush administration has sharply criticized Israel’s latest attack on a densely populated neighborhood in the Gaza Strip, calling it a “heavy handed action that will not contribute to the peace.”
At a time when the petropolitics of the Bush administration seem to reign supreme, the rights of peoples affected by the global hunt for oil have received an important boost. An African commission has ruled the Nigerian government should compensate the Ogoni people for abuses against their lands, environment, housing, and health caused by oil production and government security forces. Nigerian and international groups say that the ruling by the nine-member African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) is a sweeping affirmation of what the human rights community calls ESC rights–defined by the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social, and, Cultural Rights.
Observers from all political tendencies–left, center, and right–are finding common ground in their description of the Bush administration’s fundamental reordering of U.S. foreign policy. The Bush presidency, especially since September 11, has shifted U.S. engagement in global affairs out of the post-WW II framework of multilateralism toward an unapologetic unilateralist approach. But the term unilateralism doesn’t adequately convey the new projection of U.S. power around the world. Political scientists are calling the present era one of U.S. hegemony. Not just a superpower, America is the global hegemon. Others, especially in Europe, have a starker portrayal of the new U.S. global reach, characterizing the U.S. as an empire.
The unraveling of the reputations of firms that were once the toast of Wall Street continues and the end is not in sight. But one thing is certain: already fragile prior to Enron, the legitimacy of global capitalism as the dominant system of production, distribution, and exchange will be eroded even further, even in the heartland of the system. During the halcyon days of the so-called “New Economy” in 2000, a Business Week survey found that 72% of Americans felt that corporations had too much power over their lives. That figure is likely to be much higher now.
Western aid is not reaching Afghanistan at the same pace that President Hamid Karzai is setting in his efforts to build a legitimate, ethnically balanced national army. Afghans are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the United States and the Karzai government, whose budget is running alarmingly short. With refugees desperate for aid and no foreign donors willing to underwrite major reconstruction efforts until spring 2003, Karzai’s aggressive initiatives to reduce regional warlords’ power face a severe test.
This week’s official inauguration of the African Union (AU), which replaces the moribund Organization of African Unity (OAU), was held amid predictable fanfare. Yet despite high expectations, tensions between opposing factions are already threatening to sour celebrations marking the birth of an organization African leaders hope will advance African development and democracy. The danger is that underlying differences between some of the most powerful and influential of the 53 member states may return to haunt the AU should they remain unresolved.