Part 1: Reluctant hegemon
Part 2: Righteous king
BEIJING - The Gulf War of 1992, by which time the Soviets were no longer a danger, should have brought the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to an end. But the fact that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein miraculously managed to survive despite his military defeat dragged out for years a situation in which OPEC, while not as powerful as in its heyday, was still controlling the throttle of oil prices.
Against this backdrop cynical observers could read al-Qaeda's terrorism as an effort by certain Saudis to regain full control of their land (and their oil, which had been under loose US tutelage since the Gulf War) by trying to kindle the implosion of the United States through terrorist actions.
The implosion or fall of the US would have been bad news not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world. A cowering, wounded United States would have precipitated a global economic downturn, dragging down all emerging markets, China's included, and would have created a huge vacuum of power that no one could fill. This in turn could have brought about chaos for developed and developing nations, with the only benefit going to the ultimate producers of energy and fundamentalist faiths such as Wahhabi Islam. Incidentally, both happen to reside in the same place - Saudi Arabia.
It is thus important while cracking down on actual or future terrorism to regain control of oil at the same time, in order to keep energy at a reasonable price for all those who want to carry on with economic development. In this case the interests of India, Japan, the United States, Europe, Southeast Asia, South Korea, China, the developing countries and to a degree Russia are consistent: all want low oil prices to finance their growth. The control of oil resources, then, can be at an optimal crossroads of idealism (the fight against terrorism) and imperial motivation (a check on the price of energy). This could be the card for the establishment of a new world order in which the United States after years of wobbling in a vacuum without big fights against big faiths (fascism, communism, fundamentalist Islam) could spin off a new perspective of rapid economic development for everybody.
The idea is that if you strive for development you will be rewarded, while if you squander your inheritance or resources you'll suffer. Many OPEC countries appear to be in the latter category. Many of them have used oil riches to let Bedouins live into their old age with modern comforts. They often did not invest in modern industry, they did not use their God-sent resources to build modern states that could survive with or without oil. They look like those people of the old European rentier aristocracy who complained about their dwindling income but did nothing to replenish it, while the new aggressive bourgeoisie was working hard on building its fortunes.
The war against Iraq, then, could be an opportunity for new economic development. This could be the base for the new American wangquan zhuyi, true rulership. The American Empire could then try to reconcile with itself. The United States is the strongest, everybody knows it, and no nation in its right mind can challenge it. Not only that, but in the present shaky world balance, the US has to be this way for decades before new balances can emerge. A political vacuum without the United States would now be dangerous for developed and developing countries alike.
But the fear is, can a country with such overwhelming military power restrain itself? Might not a mad general seize power and launch a nuclear holocaust? Might not a president go mad and singlehandedly drive the world to the end? The US for the first time in the history of the planet can in fact do just that, and the world could not assemble a coalition capable of resisting it - its military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, are arguably superior to those of all other countries put together.
The world therefore must ultimately rely on American goodwill that Washington won't go nuts. Objectively, this is a condition of hegemonism: to change it into true rulership the US must make an extra effort to soothe friends and foes. This will reinforce its rule and extend it into the future. This was ultimately the trick played by Chinese imperial dynasties, which tried to affirm their right to rule the world (tianxia, all that is under heaven). Cynically, one could say that they launched a soft war on their subjects and enemies alike to buttress their rule. Although they also used force, this, at least ideally, came many steps after the use of peaceful persuasion.
The United States currently wields immense cultural muscle by its domination of the movie, television, music and software industries, the so-called soft power, yet the administration of President George W Bush doesn't convincingly explain (or think through) its political moves, to win the political war before the military war. The rift with Europe is due to this deficiency in the political war. Hegelians and Confucians alike would tell the Bush administration it needs to keep the upper ideological hand; without this, all the soft power could crumble and all the world would be in danger.
In China, for instance, allegedly home of many opponents of US hegemonism, pundits are against the unilateral use of US force, and see it as a danger for the US and the world order. They could be appeased by better-founded, better-argued rulership, because China can't hope to replace the United States for many decades, and an old known master is better than a new unknown master or total confusion.
If this is the case in China, arguably it is so in every corner of the world. Therefore the US has nothing to be afraid of but itself ... and this, both for the United States and the rest of the world, might be the real concern. (2002-10-18 Asia Times)
