By José Miguel Alonso Trabanco
February 21, 2009
The financial and economic turmoil the world is currently experiencing will certainly have many serious consequences beyond those fields. Indeed, its geopolitical fallout could be far more serious than commonly acknowledged and it is an element that cannot be neglected by neither statesmen nor analysts.
Some scholars frequently hold that politics and economics are somehow separate. Such view is profoundly mistaken because politics and economics are strongly interlinked. Actually, political power and economic wealth cultivate one another. Likewise, economic trouble, more often than not, tends to lead to political trouble and the reverse is equally true.
Therefore, it is fairly reasonable to assert that this financial crisis will have a major impact on the international system’s balance of power. Some states (including Great Powers) could redefine their priorities. Other states are in a direr situation so they would have to make dramatic adjustments concerning their policies.
Take the case of the United States. Following the end of the Cold War, the US intended to establish a unipolar era in which its hegemonic position would remain unrivaled (the so called ‘Project for a New American Century’). However, Washington has had to deal with several setbacks and challenges like the rise of other great powers (China and Russia), the proliferation of anti-American regimes (Iran, Venezuela) as well as Washington’s military quagmires (Iraq and Afghanistan). Thus, the position of the US could be weakened as a result of the financial crisis.
The Era of American Leadership Is Over
By Paul Craig Roberts
February 02, 2009 “Information Clearinghouse” — -Vast numbers of people in the United States and abroad are hoping that President Obama will end America’s illegal wars, halt America’s support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians, and punish, instead of reward, the shyster banksters whose fraudulent financial instruments have destroyed economies and imposed massive sufferings on people all over the world. If Obama’s appointments are an indication, all of these hopeful people are going to be disappointed.
James Petras examines Obama’s foreign policy appointments and finds the largest collection of Zionist militarists outside of Avigdor Lieberman’s far right political party in Israel.
Petras concludes that Obama’s “diplomatic” team has Iran in its sights, an hostility that meshes with Israel’s own intent. Not realizing that a member of the press had been mistakenly invited to a selected audience, the Israeli ambassador to Australia said that Israel’s attack on Gaza was a dress rehearsal for a major attack on Iran. Netanyahu, the expected winner of Israel’s March elections, has again declared that Israel will not permit Iran to have a nuclear energy program as it would provide the basis for developing nuclear weapons.
It makes no sense for Israel to baldly state its intention to attack Iran if Israel does not mean it. What if the Iranians believe the Israelis and decide to strike first with their long-range missiles?
Obama’s economic appointments are just as discouraging. Obama chose as his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the man who helped Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, engineer the $700 billion dollar rip off of the US taxpayer, money that was gifted to the crooked banksters who destroyed Americans’ pensions, jobs and health care coverage.
These banksters, and the negligent federal regulators that enabled them, should be put in prison, not handed hundreds of billions of dollars.