Washington and the New World Order, Essay Example

Coming to Terms with F. William Engdahl’s “Washington and the New World Order”

“Washington and the New World Order” by F. William Engdahl, an American reporter currently residing in Germany, and appearing on the website www.veteranstoday.com, aims to clarify from a specific geopolitical perspective various recent decisions in American politics. The thesis of the article is that the United States has on its policy agenda a specific “globalization” strategy, which helps explain various U.S. policy decisions in the last twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, such as the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Such policy decisions, in the author’s view, are consistent with an attempt to seize global power, as the U.S. after the Soviet Union’s collapse, remained the world’s only superpower: U.S. politics, both internally and externally, is thus directed towards, in Engdahl’s words, the “pursuit of a de facto global empire, The American Century, as Time-Life publisher Henry Luce named it in a famous 1941 editorial in Life magazine.”

The author develops his thesis about American geopolitics by direct reference to U.S. policy decisions, attempting to explain them in terms of their overall strategic significance. Thus, in opposition to the U.S.’s direct invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the recent Arab Spring, has meant that “Obama chose to act in the ‘Arab Spring’ through proxies, mindful of avoiding a new Iraq or Afghan debacle.” (Engdahl) Key to this overall strategy is therefore the ongoing Syria conflict, where American proxy support of Syrian resistance fighters, including members of al-Qaeda, has been designed to “topple Bashar al-Assad” and cause a “full-scale regime change.” (Engdahl) This, however, has led to opposition from Russia and from China, thereby indicating that the failure of the U.S. to initiate this regime change in Syria means that the goal of U.S. hegemony has not been realized: it is now possible for other countries to oppose the U.S. policy decisions, which was not possible, for example, approximately a decade ago, when most of the world objected to the United States’ invasion of Iraq, yet the U.S. nevertheless carried this military operation out.

The method Engdahl uses to develop these claims is therefore to situation U.S. politics within a geopolitical context: he presents the argument that the U.S. has ambitions of global hegemony, and it this ambition that motivates U.S. foreign relations. For example, this is why the U.S. can remain close allies with Saudi Arabia, despite their clear violations of human rights, while they can accuse Syria of violating human rights: this rhetoric is utilized to justify a particular decision to the international community, but the aim of these operations is to maintain power. Engdahl therefore avoids many of the clichés of American political analysis, such as Republican vs. Democrat: arguably, the author is successful in this approach, since U.S. foreign policy has not radically changed from the transition from Bush to Obama. Engdahl strips away much of the rhetoric and ideology and propaganda surrounding political rhetoric, and looks at the topic of political decision making from a realist perspective that takes the ultimate aim of states as seeking out to increase and maintain power. The key concepts of Engdahl’s texts are thus geopolitics and political power: the relationship between countries such as Russia and the United States is not defined by any particular ideology, but rather by a struggle for power. By thinking through political decisions in this manner, we can understand the logic behind these decisions.

In this regard, the author’s arguments are compelling. How else can we understand apparent contradictions, such as the criticism of a lack of democracy in Syria, while the United States remains ardent allies with Saudi Arabia, or how the U.S. can remain ardent allies with Israel, despite the occupation of the Palestinian territories. It is simple to imagine a scenario where the U.S. would be criticizing Israel for their actions against the Palestinians, using rhetoric such as democracy, human rights, etc. But the United States does not do this – why? The author’s perspective allows us to cut through the rhetoric and see all these various alliances around the world as part of a geopolitical struggle for power between nation states. They only use terms as democracy when it suits their strategic objectives.

Limitations to this account are not inherent to the method itself, but rather in terms of alternatives. If all politics is only a battle between nation states for power and control, where can we find any optimistic elements for change and reconciliation? Certainly, this is not the author’s own limitation: Engdahl is analyzing his subject matter from a geopolitical perspective, and not from the perspective of ethics. Yet such an approach really offers us no alternatives to the current situation, making us feel even more helpless in terms of politics, and recognizing the myth of democracy, as those who have power remain in power.

From the other perspective, this is not Engdahl’s job: he is not trying to think up new utopian systems. He is trying to point out the logic for strategic decision making in politics. Nevertheless, Engdahl does see optimism in the scenario: to the extent that the U.S.’s attempts at hegemony have in fact failed, this means that, in the author’s words, there exists the opportunity to build a ““New New World Order” based on social justice and peaceful development of our planet.” However, if politics is a struggle between giants, with only their own self-interests in mind, where does this chance lie? Does it lie through the already existing political mechanisms? This would seem impossible from Engdahl’s perspective, because these mechanisms are controlled by those in power. Despite these questions, Engdahl’s text provides us a provocative, fresh and realistic look at political decision making and grand strategy, beyond the propaganda that appears in the mainstream media on a daily basis and is presented as news.

Works Cited

Engdahl, F. William. “Washington and the “New New World Order.” Veterans Today. 7 January, 2014. Web. 20 February 2014. Accessed at: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/07/washington-and-the-new-new-world-order/