Bye, Bye Hegemony

Good news! According to the New York Times Magazine, Gramsci is on the skids: American hegemony is a thing of the past.

For 2016, Parag Khanna predicts a trilateral system of world domination, split between
the states, China, and the EU, with the power of the US in continuous, steady decline; American 'soft power'works no longer, as foreign investment and even domestic pop music capital go outre-mer. So-called 'second world'--nation-states (Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are examples) that, for Khanna, cannot simply be called 'Third World', and whose geopolitical positioning grants them considerable leverage--will come to dictate the world's balance of power for years to come. Chavez looms large in Khanna's article, in which the author also speaks of a 'new Arabism' among Middle Eastern states more concerned with distributing oil wealth locally rather than in American banks. This 'new Arabism', while having echoes of Nasser, seems unsurprisingly unconcerned about Palestine.

Works Consulted #8

Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. Oxford: 2003.

Johnson, James Weldon. The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man (1912). Dover: 1995.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Hackett: 1987.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo (trans. Kaufman). Vintage: 1989

Well-Made World 29

We know what you're thinking: after all that talk about more updates, we at NE have flaked once again. But we promise, it's not our fault. We were ill. It was gross and scary.

But we're back just in time for the death of Heath Ledger, not to mention recent goings-on in Gaza, where yet another Israeli siege continues, and the wall at the Egyptian border in Rafah has been leveled, sending tens of thousands of Palestinians into Egypt in search of basic supplies. Karen Koning AbuZayd, the head of UNRWA*, writes in the Guardian that 'a new hallmark of Palestinian suffering' has been reached in Gaza. Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz's Chief US correspondent, has posted letters from John McCain and Barack Obama on the situation in Gaza, and notes that both McCain and Obama regard Israeli security as a paramount concern (both believe, for example, that Israel has been 'forced' by Hamas to invade Gaza), and a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza an afterthought. Rosner also points out the obvious, namely that, as Obama's presidential hopes have been formulating, he's been increasingly vocal in his blanket support of Israeli government policy regarding Palestine. Scroll further down the page and you'll learn that Jon Voight supports Rudy because he's good for Israel! This is almost--almost--as good as seeing Chuck Norris on the stump for Mike Huckabee.

In a more serious vein, we go to Amira Hass. While some of her phrasing is unfortunate ("amnesia, shortsightedness, disorientation and learning disabilities," she remains one of the most important and insightful Israeli voices sounding off on Gaza.

We're a bit out of our comfort zone here, but we should touch on the disaster that was this past week in the world of finance, which, according to Paul Craig Roberts has put the lie to the "free trade delusions" that have dominated American economic policy for the better part of three decades.

*Short for the clunky United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East.

Money Money Money

Not too much time right now for a long introduction, but try and take a look at this crucial piece by John Lanchester for LRB about credit economy and banking.

'Can it be we are not free? It might be worth looking into.'**

Though we're currently down on Alexander Cockburn, his brother Andrew does not disappoint with his latest piece for Counterpunch, critique of the politics surrounding 'official' estimates/reporting on the downright horrifying number of Iraqi civilian casualties since the 2003 invasion. In contrast to the most recent Johns Hopkins findings, placing the number of Iraqi murders at 665,000, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (which, we should point out, excludes many of the country's most dangerous destinations--Baghdad, Anbar province, and two other areas deemed too unsafe to visit) recently published a far lower number: 151,000. Despite the fact that the two estimates quantify totally different death tolls (the NEJM report is interesting strictly in civilian casualties, while the Hopkins report compares death rates since the invasion with years before), the NEJM estimate has been touted by everyone from George Bush to The New York Times as the more accurate of the two; however, Cockburn draws attention to sloppy reporting and misleading statistical rhetoric in NEJM report, rightly taking the journal to task for lending a hand in attempts to downplay the devastating effects of the American invasion.


In other news, Gabriel Piterberg has written a fascinating article for the New Left Review, in which he analyzes and, in a sense, unearths, Hannah Arendt's political opposition to the Zionist project in Palestine. Recognizing the real danger of anti-Semitism, Arendt rejects the notion of a racially-exclusive Jewish state and attempts to find other solutions to the infamous 'Jewish question'. And finally, if you can get past the awful new layout at one of our go-to websites, ZNet Communications, you'll find a recent interview, conducted by Stephen Shalom, with our friend Bashir Abu-Manneh, in which the latter touches on the significance of 2007 and 2008 being, respectively, the 40th and 60th anniversaries of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the establishment of the State of Israel. Bashir also speaks about congruity between present-day Hamas and pre-1982 Fatah, as well as the history and current state of the Left in Palestine.

**Samuel Beckett, Molloy, 1955

The New Hampshire Blues

Our New Year's resolution: we'll get better than this once-a-week thing, give you more frequent updates and broadened 'coverage.' For now, let's deal with the ridiculous theatrics of electoral politics in America.

Uncharacteristically for Alex Cockburn, this piece he coauthored with Jeffrey St Clair is seriously fucking boring and poorly written, but is as good a place as any to start engaging with the Iowa/New Hampshire caucus/primary nonsense. Looking to characterize Obama as somehow separate from the Democratic party 'elite'--to us, though, he may not be a former First Lady, but he is sure as shit among the cream of the party crop--Cockburn/St Clair spend most of their time attesting to Obama's ability to expand the American electorate, particularly among young voters. We can't argue that this isn't, ultimately, a positive effect, but in this video for The Guardian Ken Silverstein points out something that has been bugging us for months now: what is it about him, aside from, say, his name, that makes Obama so opposed to the democratic mainstream? Yes, he's smart and charismatic, and he is clearly, for many Americans, a figure for change--but what no one seems to be asking is what does that change represent for Obama himself? We'd also like to call your attention to two articles that try to answer that question: one is on his outlook regarding a long-standing blindspot for both the Democratic and Republican parties. The other is about his assertion that American military intervention in Pakistan should not be taken off the table is being used as justification for such action by the Bush administration. (See, also, Aijaz Ahmad on this possibility, and on recent developments in Pakistan in general.)

But Cockburn and St Clair's embarrassing leniency with the other victor in the Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee, is perhaps a worse offense. Citing Huckabee's 'tolerance' towards immigrants (something he shares, of course, with George W Bush) and 'compassion' against convicted criminals, they ignore Huckabee's noted rejection of the scientific theory of evolution, as well as his declared intent to seek a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which are just two of his most terrifying positions. Cockburn has recently been softly defending Huckabee's candidacy, shrugging off complaints from the Left that his outspoken evangelism may prove just a bit problematic as mere 'bigotry' or misguided 'hee-haws'.

Huckabee, taking after the Israelis, is on the record: supporting a border wall between the US and Mexico and no amnesty for illegal immigrants; insisting that his faith 'defines' his life; maintaining that America must support Israel as 'the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East', with no mention whatsoever of the Palestinians under occupation; that the war in Iraq is part of a 'generational' and 'ideological' struggle against terrorism, that a timeline for withdrawal is not in US interests (with the corollary that withdrawal would result in a humanitarian catastrophe for Iraqis, as if this didn't already exist); that Fidel Castro is indeed the Bogeyman; that the Second Amendment is a backbone of American democracy; that progressive taxation is, in effect, economic discrimination against the rich; claiming that the US is engaged in a 'world war' with radical Islam (hence going further than even George Bush was willing to) and must as such engage 'moderates' in the Middle East and South Asia. We'll stop there but you're welcome to check mikehuckabee.com for more information.

Alexander Cockburn: quit defending Huckabee as representative of some sort of new-fangled 'populism'. You're too smart to be so completely blindsided.

Oh, and Hillary, for all her tears, is most certainly going down.

oh

and, um, happy new year.

in commemoration of the event, take a look at this article by Alexander Cockburn on political events of the past year, from the death of Gerald Ford (whom Cockburn considers the best American president of the twentieth century) , to troop escalations in Iraq, the (attempted) character assassination of Jimmy Carter, the indictment of Michael Vick, and, of course, the recent surge in popularity of Republican presidential nominee Mike Huckabee.

Ron Paul and Chomsky

For the past few months, No Empires could not help but notice proliferations of Ron Paul paraphernalia just about everywhere. Posters and stickers bearing the libertarian presidential candidate's imprint have been spotted by No Empires constituents in airports, businesses, and restrooms, and on telephone poles and chalked sidewalks across the Northeast and the Midwest. We admit the man has been somewhat charming in republican debates, but we still want to know: who is this guy, and what is his appeal? For a start, we direct you to a blog interview with Noam Chomsky, where the linguist points out a few problems with what to many are Paul's most appealing positions, highlighting (perhaps most importantly) the ethical implications of his ultra-nationalist stance on US foreign affairs.