«Because of 9/11, more Americans are more comfortable with being imperialists»

John Feffer is one of the researchers of the Foreign Policy in Focus Project (in the Web at www.fpif.org) of the Institute of Policy Studies and the Inter-hemispheric Resource Centre. He his preparing a book, titled Power Trip, with contributions from different researchers, like Michael Klare, that Gurusonline.tv has already interviewed for this series "Pandora Oil Box".The book will be launched by Seven Stories Press in early 2003. This interview focus on the different aspects of the new global strategy of the United States of America.

Interview by Jorge Nascimento Rodrigues (November 2002)

Feffer can be contacted by email: Johnfeffer@aol.com

Why Power Trip?

The title "Power Trip" is from an expression in English that refers to arrogant, selfish conduct -- "He is on a power trip and thinks that he can do anything he wants regardless of what others say or think." We chose the title because we felt that it expressed the arrogant, unilateralist approach to foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

That "unilateralist" approach his a turning point from a "benign hegemonism" to a neo-imperial strategy, or there's a certain change in continuity?

There are definitely two trends in power-Cold War U.S. foreign policy -- benign and malignant hegemonism. In practice, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two, however. When the Clinton Administration rejected international treaties (on landmines, for instance), it was being just as unilateralist as the Bush Administration. But the Clinton Administration preferred a rhetoric of global cooperation.

Sometimes this difference between the malign and benign versions of U.S. hegemonism are substantial (the difference between war and peace) and sometimes it is simply a difference in rhetoric and formalities.

But, the difference matters?

There is, I believe, a liberal-conservative consensus in America today on the need to maintain an overwhelming military and economic superiority. There is some disagreement on the means to this end -- through globalisation or not, through transnational mechanisms or not, through military alliances with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan or not. There is also a disagreement over style -- do we ask our allies to go along or impose our policies regardless of their opinions. Sometimes this difference between the malign and benign versions of U.S. hegemonism are substantial (the difference between war and peace) and sometimes it is simply a difference in rhetoric and formalities.

American people decided to support the new global strategy?

Americans are generally happy to put up with the advantages of empire (cheap oil, cheap food) but are usually not happy about bearing the costs of empire. So the American public has been reluctant to go to war unless they feel that their "way of life" is at stake. Before September 11, Americans might have focused on the costs of empire and decided that U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the desires of U.S. oil companies to build a pipeline through Afghanistan were generating too much anti-American resentment around the world. Instead, the Bush Administration was able to convince the U.S. public that because terrorists threatened the American way of life, all costs of empire should be accepted. In other words, because of 9/11, more Americans are more comfortable with being imperialists.

The recent mid-term elections is a clear triumph of Bush new grand strategy?

I believe that the number of Americans comfortable with an American empire is relatively small. The latest election results show that Americans want to support their president at a time of crisis. But the difference in votes cast for Democrats and Republicans was very small, only a couple percentage points. And most Americans simply didn't vote. So it is difficult to use the recent elections as evidence that Americans support Bush's power trip. As I'm sure you know, Americans usually vote on domestic issues, and foreign policy plays a minor role in their deliberation. That is why so many Americans are uncomfortable with going to war with Iraq but support candidates who voted to give Bush authority to go to war.

The American public won't be able to challenge the war economics until the Democrats or a third party provide a credible alternative.

The growing budget deficit will "kill" the Bush power trip in the mid term?

The deficit is connected not only to the war on terrorism. It has grown larger because of "homeland security" and large tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrats have not presented any serious economic alternative. They have supported enormous military and homeland security budgets. Many of them have supported the tax cuts as well. And the Democrats can't use the Enron card effectively because of their own involvement in corporate malfeasance. So the American public won't be able to challenge the war economics until the Democrats or a third party provide a credible alternative.

Or the strategic "competitors" will stop the power trip, despite the historical opportunity of the USA for a global primacy?

Historically it has been very difficult for empires to prevent the rise of peer competitors. The policies that are adopted to prevent peer competitors usually backfire (such as European attempts to prevent the resurgence of Germany after World War I). China has been an important global power for centuries, much longer than the United states. The U.S. has a choice: to encourage China to become a responsible world player or to encourage the intensification of Chinese nationalism and resentment. Europe is by no means "dead" geo-strategically. As you know, European governments are becoming frustrated with following the U.S. military lead and want to develop an independent military force that can intervene for humanitarian (and security) reasons. Once Europe has this capability separate from NATO, this will change the transatlantic equation and the debate on humanitarian interventions.

The Far East region will be able to form a common market and connect with Europe by rail to create a powerful Euro-Asian link that can eventually challenge U.S. hegemony.

One of the targets of the new grand strategy of Bush Administration is Euro-Asia, the "encirclement" of this continental mass from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

The control of Eurasia has been the defining issue of geopolitics, beginning with Mackinder and continuing into the Cold War era. It continues to have a great influence on American thinking (see Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard). But I don't believe that China and Russia will accept too much U.S. influence in Eurasia. That is why they formed the Shangai Cooperation Council. The U.S. will try to influence this large and important region, but it will not be able to control it.

But is this the opportunity for the "American Century" instead of the so-called "Pacific Century", (with the emergence of China, the renewal of Russia FarEast and the coming out of recession in Japan)?

Pundits are too quick to give labels to centuries. True, Japan is in recession, Korea experienced a setback in the financial crisis, and China is dealing with inefficient industries and ethnic unrest. But I believe that East Asia in particular will experience an enormous growth in economic and political power when North Korea is further along in its economic reforms. The region will then be able to form a common market and connect with Europe by rail to create a powerful Euro-Asian link that can eventually challenge U.S. hegemony.

Propaganda says that the public enemy is a mix of civic anti-globalist movements, terrorist global networks and some rogue states acting as "contrarians" in some strategic regions. But are they the real "contrarians" to the US power trip?

You mention three different categories of resistance to U.S. policies: activists, terrorists, and regional contrarians. I don't really see that these three will work together tactically. Nor do any of the three have enough power alone to challenge the U.S. I wish that anti-globalisation activists had more power and perhaps some day they will. But at the moment the greatest counter-force to US policies are large states (Japan, China), regional bodies (EU), and international institutions (UN). Consider the GMO issue (genetically modified foods). The most important contrarian force is the European Union and its policy on labelling. This is the only force capable of standing up to U.S. policies on GMO.

© Gurusonline.tv, 2002