12 June 2005
Benevolent Hegemon
As reported in the New York Times of 6/12/05, many of the states that refused to join the U.S. coalition in invading Iraq two years ago have now agreed to join in supporting the formation of a representative democratic system of government there. Evidently, they have decided that it is best to help obtain a lasting stable outcome to the overthrow of the Saddam regime, regardless of their objections to the pretenses of the Bush Administration’s original reasons for invading.
This shows a rational acceptance of the advantages of the international hegemonic system that the U.S. has dominated since the end of WWII. In that system, as long as the hegemon is deemed benevolent overall, it is best to preserve its structure, and to accept the missteps of the leading nation, in order to avoid the possibility of a chaotic world order subject to technologically-enabled non-state terrorists.
As reported in the New York Times of 6/12/05, many of the states that refused to join the U.S. coalition in invading Iraq two years ago have now agreed to join in supporting the formation of a representative democratic system of government there. Evidently, they have decided that it is best to help obtain a lasting stable outcome to the overthrow of the Saddam regime, regardless of their objections to the pretenses of the Bush Administration’s original reasons for invading.
This shows a rational acceptance of the advantages of the international hegemonic system that the U.S. has dominated since the end of WWII. In that system, as long as the hegemon is deemed benevolent overall, it is best to preserve its structure, and to accept the missteps of the leading nation, in order to avoid the possibility of a chaotic world order subject to technologically-enabled non-state terrorists.
Comments:
Post a Comment
