Download
1 / 195
1.96k likes | 2.17k Views
Sjedinjene Ameri čke Države na početku 21. veka – aktuelni trenutak, izazovi i perspektive jedine svetske supersile. Sadržaj:. I Aktuelni trenutak jedine svetske supersile II Izazovi i izazivači jedinoj svetskoj supersili III Perspektive: čiji će biti 21. vek ? IV Literatura.
E N D
Sjedinjene Američke Države na početku 21. veka – aktuelni trenutak, izazovi i perspektive jedine svetske supersile
Sadržaj: • I Aktuelni trenutak jedine svetske supersile • II Izazovi i izazivači jedinoj svetskoj supersili • III Perspektive: čiji će biti 21. vek? • IV Literatura
I Амерички колос: премоћ САД у светским пословима на почетку 21. века
“Joш од Римског царства није се појавила ниједна земља која је била толико изнад других. Према речима часописа “The Economist”, Сједињене Државе су опкорачиле глобус попут колоса. Оне доминирају пословањем, трговином и комуникацијама; њихова привреда је најуспешнија у свету, њихова војна моћ је без премца” (Џозеф Нај)
(Paul Kennedy) “Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing. I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close. • The Pax Britannica was run on the cheap, Britain's army was much smaller than European armies, and even the Royal Navy was equal only to the next two navies-right now all the other navies in the world combined could not dent American maritime supremacy. • Charlemagne's empire was merely Western European in its reach. The Roman empire stretched farther afield, but there was another great empire in Persia, and a larger one in China. There is, therefore, no comparison.”
Сједињене Америчке Државе као једина светска суперсила • Сједињене Америчке Државе као светска империја • The United Stаtes of America as country in position of primacy • Сједињене Америчке Државе као земља која је у позицији светског хегемона
Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine says that he now defines the United States as a "hyperpower," a new term that he thinks best describes "a country that is dominant or predominant in all categories. • "Superpower," in his view, was a Cold War word that reflected military capabilities of both the Soviet Union and the United States. But now, the breadth of American strength is unique, extending beyond economics, technology or military might to "this domination of attitudes, concepts, language and modes of life. • Mr. Vedrine described France as a "power of world influence," situated in a category coming immediately after the United States, and including, he declared, "Germany, Britain, Russia, Japan, India, and perhaps others." • Сједињене Америчке Државе као Überpower (Josef Joffe)
“Бити Велика сила – по дефиницији, држава која је способна да се носи са било којом другом државом” (Пол Кенеди) • “Great Powers, as the words suggest, are the most influential states in the international system at any one time” (Martin Griffiths, Terry O’ Callaghan)
Термин Велике силе је први пут употребљен на Бечком конгресу, 1815. године • Великa силa – земља која је у стању да води конвенционални рат са свим другим великим силама, и да из тог рата изађе ако не непоражена, а оно бар да може да нанесе велике губитке најмоћнијој држави у међународном систему којем припада. Са појавом нуклеарног оружја, постало је јасно да уз конвенционално наоружање и њега морате имати у својим рукама да бисте се и даље рачунали као велика сила. (Џон Миршајмер)
Како се тврди у Пингвиновом речнику међународних односа, употребом термина суперсила означава се „појава нове класе великих сила чија је моћ супериорнија (војно-економски посматрано) у односу на традиционални појам европских великих сила“. По ауторима речника, термин је смислио W. T.R. Fox 1944. године. Видети: W. T.R. Fox, The Super-Powers: The United States, Britain and Soviet Union- their Responsibility for the Peace, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1944. Наведено према: Graham Evans, Jeffrey Newnham, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, Penguin Books, London, 1999,
“We proposing the following definitional criteria for a three-tiered scheme: superpowers and the great powers at the system level, and regional powers at the regional level” (Barry Buzan) • Superpowers – The criteria for superpower status are demanding that they require broad- spectrum capabilities exercised across the whole international system. Superpowers must possess first- class military – political capabilities (as measured by the standards of the day), and the economies to support such capabilities…
Empires, more than nation-states, are the principal actors in the history of world events. Much of what we call history consists of the deeds of the 50 to 70 empires that once ruled multiple peoples across large chunks of the globe. • Officially, there are no empires now, only 190- plus nation-states. Yet the ghosts of empires past continue to stalk the Earth.
“Imperije su oblici političke kontrole nad efektivnim suverenitetom nekih političkih društava koje im nameću druga politička društva” (Majkl Dojl) • Sve imperije koje su tokom vekova uspostavljene imale su tri zajednička obeležja: jedno se očituje u podređivanju, svaka imperija je nejednak odnos, pri čemu je jedna strana superiorna a druga inferiorna. Drugo se ogleda u prinudi. Iako veliki broj imperija uključuje i saradnju, katkad ekstenzivnu saradnju između onih koji vladaju i onih kojima se vlada, iza toga odnosa uvek stoji pretnja silom, koja se katkad i realizuje, od strane imperije u cilju održavanja vlastite kontrole. Treće određujuće obeležje sastoji se u etničkoj, religioznoj ili rasnoj razlici – ili u nekoj njihovoj kombinaciji – izemđu imperijalne sile i društva koje ona kontroliše. Imperija je oblik diktature, ali osobenog tipa: diktature koju sprovode stranci. • Pojam “vlada” koji potiče od grčke reči za krmaniti, stariji je nego termin imperija koji se izvodi iz latinske reči “komandovati”… Vlada je opštiji pojam; imperija je samo jedna od mnogih oblika vladavine. (Majkl Mandelbaum) • Naglasak na kvalitetu odnosa između političkih jedinica a ne samo na kvantitetu. Imperija može biti i regionalna po svom obimu
“Empire is the rule exercised by one nation over others both to regulate their external behavior and to ensure minimally acceptable forms of internal behavior within the subordinate states. Merely powerful states do the former, but not the latter.” (Stephen Peter Rosen)
AN EMPIRE is a multinational or multiethnic state that extends its influence through formal and informal control of other polities. The Indian writer Nirad Chaudhuri put it well: "There is no empire without a conglomeration of linguistically, racially, and culturally different nationalities and the hegemony of one of them over the rest. The heterogeneity and the domination are of the very essence of imperial relations. An empire is hierarchical. There may be in it, and has been, full or partial freedom for individuals or groups to rise from one level to another; but this has not modified the stepped and stratified structure of the organization.“ (Eliot A. Cohen)
Kao posledica rata u Iraku 2003.godine, drugi analitičari opisuju međunarodni poredak kao Američku svetsku imperiju. Na mnogo načina metafora o imperiji je privlačna. • Američka vojska ima globalni domašaj, sa bazama širom sveta i njihovim regionalnim komandantima koji ponekad deluju kao prokonzuli. • Engleski je lingua franca kao što je to svojevremeno bio Latinski jezik. • Američka ekonomija je najveća na svetu, a američka kultura je magnet drugim kulturama. • Ipak, pogrešno je pomešati politiku prvenstva sa politikom imperije.
Sjedinjene Američke Države zasigurno nisu imperija na način na koji mi mislimo o evropskim prekomorskim imperijama iz devetnaestog i dvadesetog veka, jer je suštinska osobina takvog imperijalizma bila politička kontrola nad ostalim delovima planete. • Iako odnosi u kojima postoji nejednakost zasigurno postoje između Sjedinjenih Država i slabijih sila i lako mogu dovesti do jednog eksploatatorskog odnosa sa američke strane, odsustvo formalne političke kontrole nad tim državama, čini termin "imperijalna" ne samo nedovoljno tačnim, nego i potpuno pogrešnim...
Sjedinjene Američke Države imaju više izvora moći nego što ih je imala Velika Britanija na vrhuncu svoje imperijalne moći, ali Sjedinjene Države imaju manje moći u smislu kontrole nad ponašanjem i unutrašnjom politikom drugih zemalja, nego što je to imala Britanija u doba kada je vladala četvrtinom Planete. Na primer, škole u Keniji, izbori, proces donošenja zakona i ubiranje poreza - da ne pominjemo spoljnu politiku zemlje - bili su pod kontrolom britanskih zvaničnika. • U poređenju sa tim, Sjedinjene Države imaju malo takve kontrole u današnje vreme. Tokom 2003. godine Sjedinjene Države nisu čak uspele da zadobiju glasove Meksika i Kine za drugu rezoluciju o Iraku u Savetu bezbednosti Ujedinjenih Nacija. Analitičari imperije odgovaraju da je termin "imperija" samo metafora. Ipak, problem sa tom metaforom jeste da ona podrazumeva kontrolu iz Vašingtona koja se teško uklapa sa složenim načinom na koji je moć u svetu danas raspodeljena... (Džozef Naj)
The U. S. Position in the current World order is best understood as one of primacy. The United Stets is not a global hegemon, because it cannot physically control the entire globe and thus cannot compel other states to do whatever it wants… Nonetheless, the United States is also something more than “first among equals” …If primacy is defined as being “first in order, importance or authority” or holding “first or chief place”, then it is an apt description of America’s current position.” (Stephen M. Walt)
Americans, in short, don't "do" empire; they do "leadership" instead, or, in more academic parlance, "hegemony." • According to S. Ryan Johansson, the word "hegemony" was used originally to describe the relationship of Athens to the other Greek city-states that joined it in an alliance against the Persian Empire. "Hegemony" in this case "mean[t] that [Athens] organized and directed their combined efforts without securing permanent political power over the other[s].“ • By contrast, according to the "world-system theory" of Immanuel Wallerstein, "hegemony" means more than mere leadership but less than outright empire. A hegemonic power is "a state ... able to impose its set of rules on the interstate system, and thereby create temporarily a new political order." The hegemon also offers "certain extra advantages for enterprises located within it or protected by it, advantages not accorded by the 'market' but obtained through political pressure."
Yet another, narrower definition is offered by Geoffrey Pigman. Pigman describes a hegemon's principal function as underwriting a liberal international trading system that is beneficial to the hegemon but, paradoxically, even more beneficial to its potential rivals. • Pigman traces this now widely used definition of the word back to the economic historian Charles Kindleberger's seminal work on the interwar economy, which describes a kind of "hegemonic interregnum." After 1918, Kindleberger suggested, the United Kingdom was too weakened by war to remain an effective hegemon, but the United States was still too inhibited by protectionism and isolationism to take over the role. • This idea, which became known, somewhat inelegantly, as "hegemonic stability theory," was later applied to the post-1945 period by authors such as Arthur Stein, Susan Strange, Henry Nau, and Joseph Nye.
“By virtually any measure, the United States enjoys an asymmetry of power unseen since the emergence of the modern states system. Some leading powers in the past had gained an advantage in one dimension or another – for example, in 1850 Great Britain controlled about 70 percent of Europe’s Wealth, while the number two power, France, controlled only 16 percent – but the United States is the only Great Power in modern history to establish a clear lead in virtually every important dimension of power…
The United States has the world’s largest economy, an overwhelming military advantage, a dominant position in key international institutions, and far – reaching cultural and ideological influence. Moreover, these advantages are magnified by a favorable geopolitical position. If primacy is defined as being “first in order, importance or authority” or holding “first or chief place”, then it is an apt description of America’s current position.” (Stephen M. Walt)
Economic strength as foundation of national power • The United States has been blessed with the world’s largest for over a century • The U.S. share of global production ballooned to nearly 50 percent after World War II – reflecting the damage that other countries suffered during the war – and then gradually declined as the rest of the world recovered. Nevertheless, it has hovered between 25 and 30 percent from the 1960 to the present, and the U. S. Economy is still the roughly 60 percent larger than its nearest rival, Japan. • The U. S. Economy is also more diverse and self-sufficient than other major economic powers, making it less vulnerable to the unexpected economic shifts • Although the United States is more dependent on the outside world than it was a generation ago, it still depends far less on others than they depend on it
In 2000, for example, only three countries had lower ratios of trade to gross domestic product (GDP) than the United States, and only one of them was a major military power. – with Argentina, Brazil and Japan • For example, Chinese exports to the United States were a whopping 5 percent of Chinese GDP (19 percent of total Chinese exports) and critical to Chinese economic growth. U. S. exports to China, by contrast, were a mere 0. 16 percent of U. S. GDP
A state can be wealthy without being powerful, of course – think of Brunei, Kuwait, or Switzerland – but it is impossible to be a Great Power without a large diverse economy. In particular, a strong economy enables a state to create and equip a powerful military force.
Today the United States is not only the world’ s foremost economic power; it is the dominant military power as well • While America’s military economic advantages are manifold, its military lead is simply overwhelming. • U. S. Defense expenditures in 2003 were nearly 40 percent of the global total and almost seven times larger than that of the number two power (China). To put it another way, U. S. Defense spending was equal to the amount spent on defense by the next thirteen countries combined. • The United States also spends more to keep itself in the vanguard of military technology. The U. S. Department of Defense now spends over 50 billion dollars annually for “research, development, testing, and evaluation”, an amount larger than the entire defense budget of Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan or China
The United States deployed more than 500 000 troops in the Persian Gulf for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm; mobilized substantial air, ground, and naval forces in Kosovo in 1999, and in Afghanistan in 2001; and then deployed more than 180 000 troops and other personnel to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003. • Over - Sea power projection capabilities
The United States has the largest and most sophisticated arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, and it is the only country with global power projection capability, stealth aircraft, a large arsenal of precision guided munitions, and integrated surveillance, reconnaissance, and command-and-control capabilities.
