Question: What is the state of the world today?
Howard Zinn: The world today, 2008, it’s trying to overcome American dominance in the world, trying to overcome the American military bullying that’s taking place here and there in the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan and military bases in a hundred countries.
People are trying to work their way toward a more democratic society wherever possible and to do it without war. I think this movement towards more democratic societies more concerned with human rights. We’ve already seen it begin to happen in Latin America with movements from autocratic and elitist states to more populous states. It may be that the European Union represents this in some way. It’s a long term process.
I think what is going on is an attempt to create a world which is different than the world of the past hundred years, which was a world of incessant war and domination of the world by super powers. First, two super powers, and now, one super power.
Date Recorded: July 05, 2008
Discuss
Jake Wobig on May 15, 2008, 8:57 AM
Is the "American dominance" the world is struggling to overcome the product of a particular ideology, like neoconservatism, or is it just what happens anytime a single country has preponderant power the way the U.S. has now? If it's the latter then what is the alternative? There has to be some coercive capability in the world to maintain order. The Europeans don't want to do it, and the other possible contenders probably wouldn't handle overwhelming power any better than the U.S. does. Isn't this ultimately a domestic issue for the United States? (I.e. we have to recognize that our enlightened self-interest is to advance a more human-rights-friendly foreign policy)
Jake Wobig on May 15, 2008, 12:57 PM
Is the “American dominance” the world is struggling to overcome the product of a particular ideology, like neoconservatism, or is it just what happens anytime a single country has preponderant power the way the U.S. has now? If it’s the latter then what is the alternative? There has to be some coercive capability in the world to maintain order. The Europeans don’t want to do it, and the other possible contenders probably wouldn’t handle overwhelming power any better than the U.S. does. Isn’t this ultimately a domestic issue for the United States? (I.e. we have to recognize that our enlightened self-interest is to advance a more human-rights-friendly foreign policy)
shawn disney on September 12, 2009, 1:34 PM
Good, now let’s get on with it. JW is right that any superpower at all would be rightly suspect, no matter who. And yes, some " world coercize power " is necessary , as a sort of police force. But follow out the thought: isn’t it obvious that if no one State could be trusted with this, then either we have constant war,, or we construct a political “police force” with representation of all parties (not just countries, but those without a country , such a Kurds, Tibetans, etc.) And it is obviously necessary to constrain such a powerful body with written laws and procedures, along with checks and balances, which are agreed to in advance. The US constitution would be a good pattern, but any modern one would do. Although the two house system is a beautiful way to deal with the “minority” problem. disigny
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register