it's from a free paper, it's pretty long, but I thought it was neato "Sunset for the American Empire? What U.S. decline means for Canada" from Planet S Magazine, by Gord Gilmour, copyright March 16 '06 To misquote the Winnipeg punk rock band Propaghandi, today's empire is always tomorrow's ashes. Examining the slag heap of history, two things become rapidly apparent: empires will inevitably rise and fall, and; as empires fall, there will always be fallout. For example, the erosion of the various European empires and their Byzantine interlocking system of treaties and alliances was the major contributing factor to both world wars in the twentieth century. The fall of the Roman Empire resulted in centuries of war, famine, invasion and plagues. At the other end of the spectrum is the gradual dissolution of the British Empire in the years following World War Two. While it, by necessity, involved a certain amount of upheaval, the process was relatively benign - given the precedents. As more and more evidence mounts that the debt-ridden American Empire is teetering toward the abyss, notwithstanding a population anaesthetized by its own abundance of bread and circuses, these questions gain newfound importance for Canadians. The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once noted, of the U.S., that it was difficult sleeping next to an elephant because every twitch and cough is so greatly magnified. It begs the question: what do you supposed the death throes of the elephant might be like? America Forever? The first question, of course, is just how likely is the fall of the American Empire? Is all this speculation just the nattering of a pack of anti-American eggheads? the wistful musings of Old Europe? The propaganda of America's enemies? How about the assessment of a conservative American columnist, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and an Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor to the uber-right National Review? Paul Craig Roberts minces no words when he sums up his country's recent direction. "Increasingly, the U.S. is isolated in the world, having to resort to bribery and threads to impose its diktats. No country any longer looks to America for moral leadership. The U.S. has become a rogue nation." he wrote recently. Canadian military and geo-political analyst Gwynne Dyer agrees that America is facing challenges such as it has never before encountered. The U.S. reality is ballooning trade deficits, a hollowing out of its industrial capacity and a crisis in its relationships with its traditional allies, he said in a recent interview with Planet S from his London home. "It's about 1890 for the Americans and Iraq is their Boer War," said Dyer, invoking the memory of the South African conflict that first illuminated the weaknesses of the British Empire. "It's their wake up call. They don't have many friends out here and they no longer have half the world's industrial capacity." He says if anyone had asked him a decade ago, he'd have said any marked decline of the American Empire was going to take about 50 years. Today, with the Chinese and Indian economies really hitting their stride, he's revised that figure downwards. "We're probably looking at about 20 or 25 years," Dyer says. Dyer is currently working on a book on the topic, tentatively titled Fighting Decline: American Power and the Rise of Asia French demographer and historian Emanuel Todd has a history of making prescient predictions about the end of empire. His 1976 book La Chute Finale (Before the Fall: The End of the Soviet Union), examined the Soviet Union's demographics and the prevailing cultural, military, economic and ideological factors of the time. His conclusion, a decade-and-a-half prior the actual dissolution of what Ronald Reagan termed the 'Evil Empire"? Simply put, he found that the empire had no clothes. He observed a country floundering under a declining economy, with a fearful leadership uncertain of the future. The Soviet military apparatus was growing rapidly and the country engaged in foreign military adventures in locales like Afghanistan to distract both its leaders and its population from the growing economic realities. In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuricher (New Zuricher) Todd says an examination of the U.S. today, using the same methodology, shows disturbingly similar trends. The country that brought the world the Marshall Plan and long acted in an enlightened empire has undergone a sea of change, he observes. In an age of outsourced torture and a general disregard for the rule of international law, times have clearly changed, he says. "The U.S. is about to become a problem for the world, where we have previously been accustomed to seeing a solution in them," says Todd. Reality Check Needed The worrisome signs of erosion in recent years are primarily economic. When it comes to empires, the economy is almost always the canary in the coalmine. Here, the U.S of today more closely resembles Spain in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries than the Soviet Union of 20 years ago, says Todd. During those centuries, the Spaniards looted the indigenous civilizations of the New World of untold wealth, an influx that proved to be the ultimate undoing of the Spanish empire. "They consumed and dissipated, lived high and beyond their economic means and fell into economic and technological arrears," says Todd. Roberts, the Washington economic insider, says the balance of trade tells a similar take for the U.S. America is currently consuming more than it produces and is relying on other nations to support its unsustainable lifestyle. He says figures since George W. Bush took office are especially troubling - the trade deficit has averaged closed to $500 billion annually during that time. "Americans consumed almost $3 trillion dollars more in goods and services than they produced and turned over $3 trillion of their existing assets to foreigners to pay for their consumption. Consuming accumulated wealth makes a country poorer, not richer," he says. Todd agrees economics is one of the most important sets of indicators of the health of the American Empire. Currently the vital statistics aren't looking so good. The country's former allies and developing trading partners are clearly outpacing it in economic development and economic capacity. What is even more troubling is the way the core high tech industries of America are being hollowed out, he says. He notes that high technology has always been touted as one are where American supremacy remains unchallenged - until now. "As recently as 1990, the U. S was still exporting $35 billion more in advanced technology than it was importing," says Todd. "Now the balance of trade is negative even in this field." To cite just one key example, the Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia is now four times the size of Motorola, the U.S. company that invented the technology. This area is vital because it's the sort of economic activity - technologically advanced, requiring a highly skilled workforce - where America was supposed to win. Instead it's been replaced by service sector jobs and the anemic "New Economy" based on the Internet. Despite these undeniable statistics, America and Americans still generally seem to regard their country as an unstoppable colossus astride the globe. Sharply declining productivity and hollowed out job prospects notwithstanding, they've led the world on a global spending spree even the drunkest of sailors on shore leave would be a bit shamefaced about. However, it's occurred with barely a blip. Dyer says at least in part this national delusion is related to the downfall of the Soviet Union and America's role in it. Americans feel they won the Cold War, while Dyer says the truth is that the Soviet Union lost it. At the same time, the terror attacks of 9/11 have underlined just what an unfriendly place the world has become. "They're filled with this very strange combination of hubris and foreboding," says Dyer. The net result is a sense of entitlement that could ultimately be extremely dangerous for the world as a whole. In a world of dwindling resources, Americans still believe they're all entitled to their own SUVs and all the oil they can consume. When that sense of entitlement meets reality, things could get ugly. A Canadian Course There's an old joke in diplomatic circles that suggest it's easy being a Canadian diplomat, because their first words are always, "Hello. We're not Americans." It's a bit simplistic, but it does offer an interesting insight into the realpolitik of Canadian diplomacy. Our challenge always has been, and remains, how to chart our own course. Dyer advises neither to give into knee-jerk anti-Americanism nor to indulge in our national penchant for shaudenfreud - joy in the suffering of others - when it comes to the misfortunes of Americans. Yes, they can be blowhards. Yes, they can throw their weight around a bit too much. but undeniably, they are our neighbours. "In the end, they're going to have to manage their own decline," says Dyer. "They have to do this for themselves. We have to be supportive." One area Canada might look to for some natural allies and a bit of advice on how to slowly move beyond U.S. hegemony is the newly reinvigorated democracies of Latin America. While U.S. attention has been riveted on the Middle East, these countries are clearly, if quietly (at least in North American media), moving out of the U.S. sphere of influence. One-by-one, these countries have elected leftist, pro-labour leaders such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, dashing U.S. planners' hopes for a hemispheric free trade one. With a pending Mexican election, where Leftist front-runner Andres Manueal Lopez Obrador has been pulling ahead in public opinion polls, the sweep of the region is close to complete. What is inescapable is the fact that Canada will have a front row seat for the ultimate fate of the American Empire. Geography binds us and in many ways we have what they want - oil and water, and all sorts of other raw materials. While the Canadian position will be challenging, Dyer stresses that it's not an impossible one. Any Canadian opposition to U.S. activities or unwillingness to follow blindly into foreign adventures will mirror substantial domestic opposition. Pointing the finger at Canada will simply give that opposition a high-profile ally that speaks more or less unaccented English, Dyer says. "You'd have to play the Canadian hand spectacularly badly to really get whacked by the U.S.," Dyer says. "South Park got it right," Dyer says. "You just can't turn Canada into a monster in the eye of the U.S. public. It just won't work." That having been said, it's a situation the Canadian government is going to have to place the highest priority on in the years to come. The current situation has the strongest military power the world has ever known headed for a Waterloo where all its existing might may have little real effect - but it will still provide a temptation to trump economic decline with military conquest. "There's a fairly high potential for some ugly scenes on the way down," says Dyer. The Canadian course should be respectful, supportive, but definitely not sycophantic, Dyer says. "In a way it will involve a lot of situational ethics," says Dyer. "We can't afford to alienate them, but at the same time, we don't want to get tied down too closely with them, especially not in something like Iraq." feedback@planetsmag.com Remember, this is just the opinion of one person, doesn't mean I agree with everything they said. But just in case some might still feel the need to insult Canada a bit, they already have something on the same page for you guys Talking about Canadians Anti-Canuck tantrums make U.S. prime time Several Planet S readers have inquired over the last year as to why our NewsQuirks [funny news stories] section seems to include more U.S. than Canadian content: is it because it is sourced from the U.S.? or is it because Americans are just dumber? Tucker Carlson, a conservative U.S. television pundit, seems to think it's Canadians who have the IQ problem. Here's a sampling of the wisdom from above: "Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada for New York." "Canada is a sweet country. It's like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada." "Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States. Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right?" "It's unrequited love between Canada and the United States. We, meanwhile, don't even know Canada's name. We pay no attention at all." And Tucker wonders why some people hate Americans. Beats us. (ps I take full ownership of any typos: I couldn't find an online copy of this article but I really wanted to share it with you guys)
I think any changes in the US economy, and empire, would greatly affect Canada too, since may people in Canada work for American companies, America is a ginat market for Canadian owned comapnies,the two are bound security wise, and well, in general the two countries are more closely related than many Canadians would like to think. It still generally thought that the US economy is stronger than the Canadian one. Some economists had predicted that Canada would fragment into several different countires at some point in the realtively near future, although I've not heard much about that lately. I do agree that the US not producing its own goods, and relying far too much on imports, especially from Asia, is a huge problem, and one that has gotten so much worse since Wal-Mart and George Bush came along, not to mention Clinton's free trade disasters. Tariffs are there for a reason, to protect a country's own industry, something that the US has sold out. Plus, if the US went under, who would win the Stanley cup every year
The US supplies the currency for the world (sorry euro), and Canada's official defense aginst invasion (you have it in writting that if Canada is attacked, your allies will nuke them). If the US collapsed, the global economy collapsed. The US has been borrowing a lot of money lately, but intrest rates are very low, and it's still a very managable percentage of our GDP. We've have about $645 billion of debt, but much of that is internal, through bonds, and is still not an overbearing percentage of GDP. If intrest rates raised, we couldn't borrow as much money, so we'd have to do something else *Like god forbid, raise taxes*, but assuming their are people responsible enough to realise this running our country, we're not on the immediate verge of collapse. In terms of debt, the falling price of the dollar to the euro is great news, meaning their will be less real money to repay. It'd take another 40-50 years of stupid financial policies for the US to collapse. Maybe if we tried to rekindle the cold war something would happen faster, but till then, we've just gotta wait.
eh, I think Canada's too lazy to bother with fragmenting. I'm sure Alberta's been tempted to join the US and leave Canada, but then they wouldn't be seen as such a big ol power in the country, they'd just be more of the same with the ostates
while on the topic of Canada, is "Darcy" a popular name for boys there, because there seem to be several hockey players with that name. What gives?
Canada is nothing but a undeclare united state = "state" we call it Canada to throw the Soviets off during the cold war .
I'm not wanting to cut on Canada. It is different than the US, like a completely different country, somewhere between America and England with a little eskimo thrown in. Its pretty too. I like it better than the south of the US, and better than Kansas, better than Oregon, Viriginia. I will however, cut on their music scene just having a little fun with my friends only 3 hours north of me.
you mean my wife is an eskimo, she eats raw meat..a spanish eskimo anyway, I'm, a traditionist, y'know colored people, indians,eskimos
quote: But not better than Key West or Cuba. Never been to either place, it is not better than the Bahamas, that i can personally guarantee
The Bahamas have nothing on Cuba if you bother ro size both island as far beuty goes not economics wish cuba would far excede the Bahamas and Key West is the only place left in the world were it still feels like the 1960s . i cant vouch for this since last time i was there was late 1998.
THey don't let me into Cuba anymore, ever since i was born in America that is..actually they'd let me in, but I'd have to go to lovely Canada to get there.
YOU would need a rental car and travel all over cuba not just those lovely turist dedicated spots . of course you well also see how or imagen how glorius cuba was in the 1950s "not anymore since 1959" but enough evidence to show cuba was far above all the countrys in central and south america.
when castro regime falls cuba well become another american vacation spot . but something is allways lost in the process.
yea, nothing worse than a bunch of American tourists, probably even worse than a buch of British tourists, and that's saying a lot!
