How did the post-Cold War America go today (on)

How did the post-Cold War America go today (on)

Zizhong

816

2017-04-17

153

Zizhong

The end of the Cold War marked by the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been a quarter of a century. From cheering "end of history" to plunging into internal and external difficulties today, the United States traces its roots to its strategic thinking of "post-cold war" and a series of policies and actions based on this strategic thinking. I have recently read through the last chapter of "The United States of the Twentieth Century" published in 2005, which has a more detailed account of this issue. The material was as of the second term of George W. Bush in 2006. There have of course been many new changes since then, but from a root cause, this part of history helps to understand today. In fact, many of the issues that are hotly debated today existed at that time. The excerpts are as follows for reference by interested readers. Because the text is longer, it is divided into upper, middle and lower parts.

"New Conservatism" and "Bushism"

The Bush administration (for the sake of simplicity, the "Little Bush" will be called "Bush" in the future, and the decision-making thought of adding "old" when referring to the old Bush) is commonly referred to as "neo-conservatism." Hats such as "liberalism", "neo-liberalism", "conservatism", and "neo-conservatism" have been used up, and the meanings of different people may be very different. Here only the "neo-conservatism" of the current US decision-making group. "New Conservatism" (hereinafter referred to as "new insurance") comes from the radical leap to the world in the 1960s. It runs through the national policy, represented by the Reagan government, and implements a tax policy to stimulate investment. Tough, vigorously strengthening armaments, anti-communist color is vivid, and has been promoted as a model for the "new security" of the United States, owing the Soviet Union's disintegration to the tough policy of the Reagan administration.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the "new insurance" advocated taking the opportunity to pursue victory and establish the "leadership" of the United States to the world. A group of people initiated the establishment of "The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)" chairman William Kristol in 1997, the son of Irving Kristol, who is known as the "new godfather." This is a think tank-based institution, claiming that its founding is based on the belief that establishing the leadership of the United States (to the world) is beneficial to both the United States and the world. The necessary conditions for achieving this goal are military power, Strong diplomacy and commitment to ethical principles. PNAC was founded at the beginning of the "Principle of Principles", signed by 24 political and academic circles, including George W. Bush's brother Jeb Bush and later became the Bush administration's decision-making group, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowe Et et al. Well-known scholars include Donald Kagan and Francis Fukuyama. The statement criticized the Clinton administration's foreign policy at the time and believed that he was too weak and was "wasting the opportunity" and faced the current challenge and was in danger of losing. Finally, four points are put forward: 1. A large increase in defense spending; 2. Consolidate the “democratic alliance” and challenge “the government that is hostile to our interests and values”; 3. Promote overseas economic and political liberalization; 4. In the international order. The party assumes the responsibility of the United States to play a unique role. This is basically the external program of the "new security." In essence, it is a continuation of the United States’ consistent external thinking, but it is more aggressive. The most notable of these is the second one. The main point is that the United States should take the initiative to issue challenges. Second, the "hostile values" can also be used as a reason. Third, the object is not necessarily the state, but the "political body." This was the basis for the subsequent attack on Iraq by the United States. After the excuse of "weapons of mass destruction" could not be established, the goal of war was changed to "changing the political system."

Another political commentator directly related to Bush’s policy is Natan Sharansky, a former Israeli deputy prime minister. He was a Soviet Jew. He was imprisoned for 9 years for defending the rights of Jews. Gorbachev is in power. After the release, immigration to Israel, in several major government positions. He co-authored "Protection for Democracy: The Power of Freedom Can Overcome Tyranny and Terror", published in 2004, to demonstrate its political proposition in detail. The main argument is that the country is divided into two categories: democracy and autocracy. It is not white or black. There is no middle ground. The former is a "free" society and represents "good". The latter is a "fear" society, representing "evil". The symbol of society is whether the people in the country are free to announce different political views in the square without fear of being suppressed. The pursuit of freedom is the nature of all people. Under the rule of authoritarian regimes, people are yearning for freedom. As long as there is an opportunity, they must abandon the darkness. Therefore, the democratic state has the responsibility, and it is also possible to actively promote democracy in various ways and help the people under authoritarian rule to be free. He is fundamentally opposed to the policy of peaceful coexistence of different systems. He believes that freedom, democracy and human rights are closely linked to international peace and security. Any compromise and easing of authoritarian regimes will help them prolong their lives, prolong the suffering of the people of the country and lead the world not to Safety. He criticized the realist diplomacy represented by Kissinger and believed that the whole process of suspending and policy was to support a system that had long since collapsed and help it to survive. He demonstrated this set of theories with his own experience in the Soviet Union, and at the same time promoted and around the world, he was a hardliner on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and opposed the compromise with Palestine. This principle is also used to support the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, saying " The price of 'stability' within non-democratic countries is external terror." Just as the United States was deeply mired in Iraq and was criticized at home and abroad. When Bush’s approval rate dropped sharply, the book came out and comprehensively provided a theoretical basis for defending the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. Of course, if Bush received the best, he immediately agreed that it would It is a must-read for the White House.

New Breakthroughs and Limits of Hegemony in Practice

After Bush took office, the tough characters of the "new security" entered the government decision-making group, but it was not clear from the beginning that they should act according to this theory. The foreign policy part of Bush’s first inaugural speech was not particularly innovative, and there was no clear enemy at the time. It should be said that 9·11 provides an opportunity for the “new insurance” theory to be useful. The impact of September 11 on all Americans is unprecedented, and it is also a severe test for the new Bush administration. So we saw a series of strong and rapid reactions. First of all, this incident was declared a war, and then the conventional war was actually launched, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. In line with this, the "unilateralism" and "preemptive strike" were proposed to the outside world. The "Patriot Law" was established in the country, and the "Ministry of Homeland Security" was established to give intelligence agencies extraordinary powers.

Since the September 11th, the diplomatic thinking and actions of the United States have been compared with previous governments. The breakthrough point is the implementation of the second point of the above PNAC statement. To avoid cumbersomeness, let's just take Bush's second inaugural speech in 2004 as an example. This speech is actually a recognition of his practice during his first term. The general idea is that the root cause of the September 11 attacks on the United States is hatred and dictatorship around the world. "The freedom of our land can continue, depending on the victory of freedom in other land." "The interests of the United States and us." The basic beliefs of the United States are now one, "the urgent need for national security and the call of the times." To this end, "the US policy is ... to end the tyranny of the world as the ultimate goal" and use force when necessary. In short, the biggest feature of this speech is to directly link the promotion of democracy abroad and the security of the United States, to eliminate the autocratic regime as a policy goal, and to use force with justifiable power.

It is not new for the United States to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world, but in the past it was presented as an ideal, in the form of a savior. During the Cold War, words and deeds were all measured. When Truman talked about "the threat of communism", he also talked about the connection between defending freedom and security, but its meaning is defensive, that is, the other side wants to launch the world revolution. The United States sent troops to North Korea and Vietnam. From the perspective of the United States, it is a kind of defense. It is the other side that breaks through the line of defense (that is, there is a treaty delineating or defaulting the boundary of sphere of influence); the result of the withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam is that the North Vietnam unifies the South Vietnam, the Nixon Administration. Had to accept. The Kosovo war within Clinton bypassed the United Nations, but in the name of "NATO", like the previous interventions, the local parties first fought and the United States entered. The flag was "humanitarian" and "stopping race." Extinct, not "defend the United States." Now, according to the logic of Bush and his "new security" advisers, first of all, US security is already at risk, defending US security = anti-terrorism = anti-authoritarian system = changing the power of other countries, using force, "interfering in internal affairs" is not an obstacle at all. Because the internal affairs of other countries are closely related to the security of the United States. According to this logic, there is no problem of peaceful coexistence of different systems, and because terrorism has no national borders, in the name of counter-terrorism, you can choose to attack targets without being provoked. Even the definition of the allies is based on whether or not to agree to the US policy. The dissidents are not counties. Therefore, Iraq is called "coalition of the willing", neither the United Nations nor the original allies. If you don’t agree, everything will be transferred by the will of the United States. This is the so-called "unilateralism". It is to push the "American Exceptionalism" to the extreme, that is, international law, rules of the game, and even the United States presided over, can restrain other countries, and the United States is not bound, because the United States has led the world. "Destiny". It believes that the world is righteous, and the world only sees its domineering.

Interestingly, the "theory" of "new insurance" coincides with the Soviet Union of the year. The following articles can be replaced by "the United States" into the "Soviet Union": 1. Declaring the realization of communism by "liberating all mankind" ( The "free democracy" is the ultimate goal; 2, the interests of the Soviet Union represent the highest interests of all mankind, so the interests of other countries should be subject to the interests of the Soviet Union, otherwise it is "narrow nationalism"; 3, (Brezhnev's "Sovereignty limited theory": the sovereignty of other countries is limited, and the sovereignty of the Soviet Union is infinite; 4, only ask the purpose, use whatever means, support the revolution does not interfere with internal affairs, and is not bound by international law;

Of course, any analogy has its flaws. Here is just the ultimate thinking of the two, which shows that hegemonism has a certain degree and has its similarities.

Security measures eroded civil rights

After 9/11, a series of measures taken by the US government have clearly violated the basic rights cherished by Americans, and are concentrated in the "American Patriots Act". As the first major response to September 11th, the US Congress passed the Patriot Act at an unprecedented speed and overwhelming majority, and was signed into force by the President on October 26. The 342-page bill did not go through much debate, and the House of Representatives passed an overwhelming majority, and the Senate had only one vote against it. Many Members have said that they have no time to read the full text, but if they disapprove, they will be considered "not patriotic." This law, in the name of counter-terrorism, gives the government broad powers to obtain the necessary information, such as eavesdropping—including eavesdropping on the conversation between detainees and lawyers—searching, invading PCs and websites, and going to the library to check Personal borrowing records and prohibiting the library from being disclosed to anyone - including journalists and individuals. As a basis for such infringement, the “Enemy Combatant” was created, which means that the President can authorize the detention of anyone, as long as the person is identified as having a plan to participate in a terrorist activity. This charge applies to US citizens because Al Qaeda has used US territory as a battlefield. Detainees on this charge are treated according to military law, and lawyers are not allowed to detain indefinitely without trial. The “presumption of innocence” does not apply here.

In fact, they are suspected and thus classified as suspects. Most of them are Arabs or Islamic-Americans. The invisible racial discrimination has risen again. People of this ethnic group clearly feel some kind of discrimination. For a time, everyone is at risk. Invisibly, a large number of American citizens of Arab origin have been isolated for no reason, and their rights are not guaranteed. In the Second World War, the United States has taken measures against Japanese citizens who have unfairly deprived them of their legal rights. After half a century, they apologized and compensated. It is now claimed that counter-terrorism is a war, and that the country of a particular ethnicity is designated as a country that harbors terrorists. This group of American citizens is discriminated against and is repeating this mistake. The only difference is tangible and intangible.

The Guantanamo concentration camp and the incident of prisoner abuse have caused extreme public sentiment, which has caused public opinion in the world. It can be said that thousands of people have pointed out that the Americans are self-sufficient. No matter how the senior leaders defend, they cannot quit. The main thing is to get intelligence and use whatever means. From a deeper perspective, it is also related to racial discrimination. Abuse of prisoners, extorting confessions by torture, countries have existed in the past and present, and they are mostly in places where dark days cannot be overlooked. However, there are two specialities in the abuse of prisoners in the United States: first, the international nature, blatant disregard of international laws and conventions such as the Geneva Conventions; second, the way of abuse has long exceeded the purpose of extracting intelligence, but to insult the personality and to deliberately Religion. The abuser is not ashamed, he is proud of it, and everyone circulates it. The first point reflects power and hegemony. The second point is human distortion and deep-rooted, subconscious racial discrimination. The two are actually the same roots. Although there are all kinds of people in the US military, the overall mentality is the same, and the enemy is not treated as an "unfamily". It is not applicable to the beasts, "humanity" and "human rights". Any abuse, peace of mind. It was this mentality that European colonialists treated indigenous peoples, including American Indians; the blacks did not belong to the scope of constitutional protection for a long time. But today, in any case, it is impossible to openly racist Banners, this is only a potential mentality. That is to evoke the worst part of human nature in an environment.

Polarization, ethnic and social problems are serious

According to Irving Christo's elaboration of the "new insurance" proposition, its internal policy is to reduce taxes to stimulate production. The core is to maintain high economic growth and achieve prosperity, but not equality. He believes that affluent society is the foundation of modern democracy. As long as everyone becomes a producer and taxpayer, it is not easy to be tempted by the "average illusion." In other words, you are only suffering from unequalness without suffering from inequality. Against high welfare. Unlike traditional conservatives, it is not absolutely opposed to the expansion of government power, and sometimes has to accept the necessary deficit as the price of growth, and is more satisfied with the current strong US government. This concept is implemented in practice as a tax policy since Reagan. Every tax reform has greatly reduced investment income tax, and opponents call it “robbing the poor and getting rich”.

Since the 1970s, the gap between the rich and the poor has continued to widen. After entering the 21st century, this trend has increased and become more "pyramidal." Official statistics usually divide national income into 5 points, comparing the highest 20% with the lowest 20%. But this does not reflect the real problem. According to a New York Times report, a number of “super rich people” have emerged over the past 30 years, with an annual income of $1.6 million. More than one thousandth of the population, about 145,000 taxpayers. The income far exceeds the “average wealthy” of 9.9% below this, not to mention the other 90% of the middle and low income population. One thousandth of the super rich had an average annual income of 3 million in 2002, and in 1980 it was 1.2 million, which is a 2.5-fold increase, far more than the other 10% of the general rich in the same period of income growth, while the rest 90% of the population is negative after inflation. In addition, based on the assets of a household (including real estate, investment and other assets), the total assets of 338,400 households in 2001 (excluding inflation) increased by 400 times compared with 1980, while the rest of the US Total assets only increased by 27%. In addition, the income tax, medical insurance and other social insurance paid by the super rich are almost the same as those with annual income between 50,000 and 75,000, and lower than those with annual income between 100,000 and 200,000. In other words, losses are affected from the upper middle to the lower income. Although there are many statistical methods, the numbers are not exactly the same, but the general picture is not bad.

At the beginning of Bush’s inauguration in 2001, he further proposed a package of bills entitled “Economic Growth and Mitigation Tax Law”, which included the phasing out of real estate inheritance tax. This move is not much for the attention of outsiders, but it is a subversion of the tradition that has always been a personal struggle for the United States. Opponents argue that inheritance tax is a tangible and democratic constraint on a large concentration of wealth and power. Abolishing the inheritance tax will widen the gap between the rich and ordinary Americans in economic and political influence, and can only make a very small number of US Millions of billionaires benefit from the poor who can't make ends meet. In addition to economic losses, it is more important to undermine the social foundation on which the United States is based, that is, to rely on individual contributions rather than to get rich by family. It will turn a society that values ​​talent into a hereditary aristocratic society, discourage innovation and struggle, and ultimately curb economic growth. The United States has always been self-sufficient in social mobility, and its upward mobility has exceeded downward flows, but in fact the overall trend of upward mobility has been largely stagnant since a generation. Former Federal Reserve Director Alan Greenspan also believes that this situation is not a good thing for a democratic society.

The problem of poverty disparity is inseparable from social justice and ethnic issues. In 2006, a professor from the United States who studied Martin Luther King came to China to give a speech. When the audience asked if Kim lived to the present and thought that his dream was being realized, he said that Kim would be very disappointed because what he was fighting for was Social justice, the United States is now far away. Just to give an example: In the 1960s, President Johnson also dared to raise the goal of “warning against poverty.” Now, if a political figure proposes a slogan similar to poverty eradication, he will be considered to have a problem with his brain.

The Bush administration’s economic policy began in early 2001 and has nothing to do with 9.11. However, the consequences of such a policy are even more pronounced as a result of a significant increase in military spending and other security-related costs after 9/11. The traditional Republican policy is to minimize government spending and avoid fiscal deficits. The Democratic Johnson’s government has both cannons and butter. At the same time as the Vietnam War, welfare has reached its peak, and the fiscal deficit is large. The current "new insurance" policy also cuts taxes to stimulate capital while conducting wars. Some people call it a "crazy" policy. As a result, the fiscal deficit has soared, and the sacrifices can only be the welfare of ordinary people.

With regard to the issue of immigration, the long-standing contradictions have been further deepened during Bush’s term. The focus of the conflict now is Mexican immigration. For the first time in the first place, the President of the United States declared English as the official language of the United States. This is a problem that many people are puzzled. English is the national language of the United States. This shows that the mainstream culture in the United States is further threatened. The first to bear the brunt of the Spanish-speaking people is to send troops to defend the border between the United States and Mexico to stop the influx of Mexicans. The focus of the "Integrated Immigration Reform Act" proposed by Bush is how to deal with illegal immigrants already in the United States. If some flexible measures are taken and the transition to legal citizens is convenient, it will be more difficult to stop the subsequent illegal immigration; if it is deported, it is obviously unrealistic because it involves 11 million people, the vast majority of whom are Hispanic. . This incident has caused a parade of new immigrants based on Latinos. Due to the recent congressional elections, this issue has become the subject of two politicians' show, and it is difficult to be resolved in the near future.

The issue of immigration is a long-standing paradox in the United States. In the past, when it came to immigration, it was mainly a matter of economic factors, and now it is counter-terrorism. The rise in anti-terrorism and racism, coupled with the economic downturn, has clearly exacerbated the prevention and exclusion of immigrants.

Enter [Sina Finance and Economics Unit] Discussion

Ladies' Trousers

There are so many bottoms to choose from: pants that are skinny, cropped, flared, or high waisted. We love that statement pants are a thing right now, so go bold or go home with a wide leg fit or a pair of palazzo pants! Don`t hold back, this is your chance to really shine! We`ve also noticed a rise of printed pants, from classic striped and plaid picks to floral fabulousness. Just check out the collection and pick your favourite pair!

Stripe Trousers,Wide Leg Pants,Floral Print Pants,Women'S Stripe Pants

Shaoxing Yidie Garment Co.,Ltd , https://www.yidiesuit.com