Our publications center their analyses of the international relations on the role of the United States. Is this angle of sight justified or overestimate us the place of " L’America " ? Actually, Washington is well in capacity D’to impose a New world order, but far D’to act as function D’national interests, it makes it to defend a transnational economic system.
September 20, 2005
The world D’aujourd’today is crushed by a " hyper-power ", according to L’expression D’Hubert Védrine. The international relations are summarized with the way in which each State positions face it. Disproportion between powers is such qu’it is useless of speaking D’independence for the other States and thus of democracy for their people. The United States is omnipresent, they control the economies, the mass-media and of the means of defense. Consequently our work D’analysis does not manage with S’to draw aside a long time from this subject and S’always finds brought back there. Our attention in the United States and their role can appear obsessional, it N’is that the fruit D’a situation.
By marking the end of " L’balance of terror ", L’collapse of L’Soviet Union opened the voice with disarmament and by là-même one period of peace and universal prosperity announced. C’is at least what L’one believed in the Atlantic block. But the respite was only of short duration. If the president George H. Bush encouraged D’access his fellow-citizens to benefit from L’opening of new markets with L’Is for S’to enrich a little more, it was not long in evoking an advisability to extend the leadership states-unien to the rest of the world.
Into his famous speech with the Congress of September 11, 1990, the president Bush father rejected the Gorbatchevian project D’a contract between nations controlled by intergovernmental organizations and substituted to him its project of " New world order " guaranteed by Washington, reminiscence of the " New European order " that IIIe Reich tried D’to impose. After having checked their capacity to build and lead a coalition at the time of the war of the Gulf (1991), the United States theorized their new objectives in a document compiled under L’authority of Paul Wolfowitz (1992) [ 1 ] : to prevent L’emergence D’a new candidate (mainly to prevent L’European Union D’ambitionner a role exceeding its regional zone) ; to prevent the industrialized countries to constitute zones D’influences in the Third World (but this S’does not address to the United Kingdom insofar as it accepts D’to articulate the Commonwealth with the power states-unienne) ; finally to preserve a sufficient matter advance D’armament to lay out D’a monopoly of dissuasion. In the long term, the " New world order " would be leaned in the only United States and either with the international law and L’UNO.
However, the crisis which shook the United States caused the defeat at the polls of the president Bush father and his replacement by Bill Clinton. This one S’endeavoured D’to be unaware of these are delirious of power, to raise L’economy and to develop the radiation of its country. But, in 1998, paralysed by L’Lewinsky business, it lost the control of the questions of defense and foreign policy. The Congress then took again on its account the project of " New world order ". It started again the arms race unilaterally, while at the same time the United States did not know D’enemy. Ultimately, L’executive and the legislature were reconciled by declaring the war in Yugoslavia, without mandate of the Security Council. Continuation N’is that too much known.
However, this presentation of L’hyper-power has its limits because it confuses the force and that which uses about it. The Fathers founders of the United States considered that the concept D’general interest could only carry out to the dictatorship [ 2 ]. According to them, L’State was ambitionner to thus serve the coalition, vastest possible, D’particular interests. At the same time, they were wary of the " rabble " and conceived their Constitution so that the capacity is not exerted by the people, but by a supposed oligarchy to reproduce the model of L’aristocracy British. C’is in the name of this original constitutional system that, for example, the supreme Court declared George W. Bush chair, in 2000, without awaiting the counting of the votes in Florida.
Capitalism being unaware of the borders, the leading class states-unienne, failing to feel interdependent of its fellow-citizens, charges its common interest with D’different leader economic and political in the world. Consequently, the world domination, if it is technically ensured by the United States, L’is not therefore by the people states-unien, but by a transnational leading class whose centre of gravity is located at the United States. The difference is serious. Thus, at the time of L’Katrina hurricane, one could observe scenes identical in the gulf of the Mississippi to those already known in Iraq : under different pretexts, the capacity D’interior intervention of L’State was to the minimum reduced there and the populations of New-Orleans or Baghdad are left to L’abandonment. A help is not brought to them, on the contrary one sends the troop to repress them.
We will thus continue to study the policy, interior and external, of the United States, but without to be easily deceived appearances.
