The Hegemonic Bubble of the United States -- Correcting the Abuse of American Power

Author: (American) Soros, translated by Yan Qing et al.
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-12-01
Features: I believe that the preemptive military actions of Bushism are disastrous, and most people around the world share this view. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a practical application of Bushism, but it instead provoked allergic reactions worldwide. This is not because anyone is defending Saddam Hussein, but because the United States had no clear evidence to prove any connection between Saddam and the "9/11" attacks, nor any clear evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, yet still insisted on invading Iraq. Today, the ideological gap between the United States and other countries in the world is larger than ever before. Countries outside the U.S. believe that the U.S. has overused its dominant position in the world, while the U.S. domestic media, influenced to some extent, believes that Saddam Hussein clearly poses a direct threat to U.S. national security. Only after the consequences of the invasion of Iraq became apparent did people gradually realize that they had been misled. In my view, the Bush administration intentionally used the "9/11" attacks to implement policies that the American public could never tolerate. I would say that the Bush administration's American hegemony dream is both unattainable and contradictory to the traditional principles the United States has always upheld. This hegemonic dream threatens our values and sense of security. At the same time, it threatens the entire world, because the United States is simply too powerful. The United States occupies the primary position in the world today, and in the foreseeable future, no other country or alliance of countries can replace this position. The United States will only lose its hegemonic status if it makes mistakes. Today, the United States is making such mistakes because our country is in the hands of a group of extremists, whose strong sense of mission is closely intertwined with their arrogant and self-willed approach to handling matters. Due to the overuse of America's advantages, these extremists are making our country weaker rather than stronger. Naturally, these fiery words will provoke fierce opposition from many people, but given the severe situation, such remarks are understandable. Today is a critical time, so my main goal is to persuade the American people to oppose President Bush in the upcoming election. We have been deceived. When George W. Bush ran for election in 2000, he promised a low-key foreign policy, not the Bushism we see today. If Bush loses the 2004 election, his policies will be treated as a temporary anomaly in the history of American politics, and the United States will be able to restore its appropriate position in the world. Conversely, if Bush is re-elected, the voters will endorse his policies, and then the American people will have to bear the full consequences. However, simply defeating President Bush at the polls is not enough. The United States must re-examine its role on the world stage and approach problems with a more constructive perspective. My personal sensitivity to the extremist measures of the Bush administration may largely be attributed to my background. I am Jewish, and I grew up during World War II in Hungary, having lived under the rule of Germany and the Soviet Union at different times. From a young age, I understood how political systems affect people's survival. When I heard President Bush say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists," I felt as if I were hearing an alarm. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft once claimed: "To those who use the illusion of losing freedom to intimidate peaceful people, I say, your 'strategy' only helps terrorists, because they undermine our national unity and erode our resolve. They provide ammunition for America's enemies and sow discord among our friends." Ashcroft's words deeply troubled me. I feel sad because the general public is not as alert as I am. This is not the America I chose as my home. In 1947, when I fled Hungary, I first came to London, England, to study at the London School of Economics. There, I was deeply influenced by the philosopher Karl Popper and learned about the differences between open societies and closed societies. After achieving success in the financial market, I founded a network of foundations to promote the development of open societies. As a practitioner of democracy in many parts of the world, I feel capable of contributing to rethinking America's role in the world. To accomplish this, I want to present a conceptual framework. This framework took shape during my student days and has been refined through my later work. In many ways, it differs from popular notions. Some of the terms I use may be unfamiliar to readers: such as open society, reflexivity, radical fallibility, fertile fallacies, the unknown principles of humanity, and the various stages of the boom-bust process. Therefore, in the appendix, I provide a brief explanation of the conceptual framework. The origin of this book stems from my previous work, "George Soros on Globalization." In that book, I examined our international financial and trade institutions (IFTIs) and proposed ways to make them more effective. At that time, my main concern was the prevalence of market fundamentalists—those who oppose any intervention in market forces. Market fundamentalists were the right-wing forces attacking the IFTIs, while the anti-globalization movement was the left-wing force attacking them. I recognized the flaws in the global capitalist system and believed that reforming and strengthening our IFTIs could fix these flaws, while damaging them could not. Without a doubt, my views are in stark contrast to the stance of the Bush administration. However, the "9/11" attacks presented an opportunity: a moment when the United States could reflect on itself and change its attitude. I did not want to miss this opportunity. President Bush has led the United States and the world in a different direction. He asserted, through the "9/11" attacks, that the United States has the right to take preemptive military actions. My primary concern now is the overuse of the "preemptive" approach. The government of the world's most powerful nation has fallen into the hands of extremists, who adhere to the primal form of social Darwinism, viewing life as a struggle for survival that must be won through the use of violence. This is a distorted view: "survival of the fittest" requires both competition and cooperation. The pursuit of military hegemony by the United States is, in fact, linked to market fundamentalism, because market fundamentalism also emphasizes competition and damages cooperation. However, the Bush administration has used the threat of terrorism as an excuse to mobilize all Americans. Before the "9/11" attacks, the prevalence of misguided ideologies was limited by the normal functioning of American democracy. The war on terror temporarily silenced critics and brought Americans into a state of emergency. It was at the moment the United States invaded Iraq that we entered what I call the "far-from-equilibrium territory." I have found that the process of pursuing American global hegemony is similar to the boom-bust cycles common in the stock market. Now, the bubble has burst. The purpose of this book is to explain how we became entangled in the chaos we face today and what role the United States should play on the world stage. In the first part of this book, I will critically examine the policies of the Bush administration; in the second part, I will clearly outline a constructive vision for America's role.