Famous theorist warns of possible US disintegration; “Reckless talk” may gain political momentum

According to Fars News Agency’s International Group, the American publication “Foreign Policy” in an analysis by “Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University and a proponent of the “threat balance” theory, warns of the growing trend of talk of secession and separatism among Americans and its consequences for the country.

The well-known international relations theorist, a columnist for Foreign Policy, makes claims about US capabilities in the introduction to the analysis, writing, “What is the United States’ greatest advantage over other nations?” Is the economy large and still innovative? Economic power is certainly important, but how did the US economy grow so much? Is the army fully armed, trained and extensive in different places? Military power is obviously valuable, but what allows Washington to deploy these forces around the world and have relatively little concern about defending the country? Or is it a set of US allies? “In review (you see) some US allies add to its power, others create problems rather than solve them, and others are more like a patron than a significant addition to US power.”

According to the author, “In fact, the unique advantage of the United States has been its position as the only major power in the Western Hemisphere and, therefore, the only ‘regional hegemony’ in modern political history. Expanding across North America, attracting incoming immigrants, and maintaining a high birth rate for many years, what were originally 13 weak and loose colonies became the world’s largest economy in less than a century. “Without any powerful rivals nearby, the United States also had a level of free security that other great powers could only dream of.”

The report goes on to claim that the combination of size, population and economic power allowed the United States to build a large military institution, which began when it was mobilized for war in the late 1930s. At the same time, it freed the United States from spending too much time and money defending its territory. It also allowed the United States to enter two world wars later than anyone else and keep its territory intact during those devastating global catastrophes. Distance (physical) helped the United States become an attractive ally during the Cold War: it was strong enough to protect its distant partners, but it was far enough away that they did not worry that the United States might dominate them. .

According to the author, “From this perspective, the victory of the North in the civil war was a critical moment with far-reaching consequences. Maintaining the union enabled the country to complement its Western development and eventually acquire the capabilities that kept its neighbors small. If the South won the war and gained independence, the two countries would each become weaker and would almost certainly remain cautious rivals for years. It is easy to imagine that the two countries would clash again and that foreign powers would intervene in the hemisphere by allying with the North or the South or with Mexico and Canada. “International politics in North and Central America was more like a multipolar continent in Europe, where great rival powers feared each other, competed for power and influence, and occasionally waged punitive wars.”

Walt writes: All of this came to my mind when I read (in an article) that Republican Sen. Ted Cruz told a group of students that Texas might be forced to secede (again) if Democrats try to destroy the country. Suppose Cruz is a talking parrot whose idea of ​​political responsibility is to fly to Cancun on vacation, while voters shudder at him for a brutal power outage. He may not have meant what he said, but he clearly thinks that this kind of reckless talk is in his political interest. It is also a wake-up call for Democrats to try to consolidate the Supreme Court or “spread electoral fraud” to Cruz when modern Republicans do their best to disenfranchise and lead the way to a permanent minority government. .

“Of course, separatist movements have been part of the (US) political scene for a long time, and usually not many,” the report said. Moreover, as Casey Michel noted at the Politico last year, modern separatism is less about real withdrawal from the union and more about trying to block government plans that certain groups do not like. However, some polls suggest that support for various separatist initiatives is unpleasantly high, and that a growing number of people (mostly on the right-wing political wing) are now willing to threaten physical violence against elected officials who disagree with their views. I have heard that armed thugs even attacked Congress last year to overthrow the presidential election, and these actions, including some of its possible goals, have been covered up and defended by prominent politicians.

Moreover, the motive for blocking separatism is not entirely limited to the political right. Massachusetts, for example, has filed numerous complaints to block a wide range of Trump-era initiatives, often in line with other states’ similar mindsets. If a future president tries to make the election plan more in favor of his party, it is inconceivable that the blue states (pro-Democrat states) in the West or Northeast would simply refuse to run.

The analyst believes that in such a situation, two dangers threaten the United States. . Americans do not need to be reminded that this ax-wielding tendency is exactly what Chinese President Xi Jinping is counting on, and the focus of China’s claims is that the political model is superior. “It is less likely, but more worrying, that the existing differences are escalating and that today’s reckless talk of disintegration is gaining real political momentum.”

He goes on to write about the possibility of such a conclusion: Stabilized countries seldom disintegrate, and civil wars are less common among democracies, unless – the scary part here – their political institutions are weak or broken. But this danger should not be completely ignored. Several democracies have disintegrated in recent decades, and separatist efforts can be costly, even if they ultimately fail, as the cases of Quebec, Catalonia, and Scotland show.

“Despite the many mistakes that have been made under US responsibility (Iraq, the 9/11 attacks, the North Korean nuclear test, etc.), when it comes to national security, Republicans like to make themselves responsible adults,” he said. However, they seem to strongly oppose any serious effort to prepare the United States for a serious geopolitical rivalry. Many of the Biden government’s proposed policies can be opposed, but their goals should not be debated: reducing polarization, leaving the epidemic behind, maintaining US technological superiority, and increasing long-term productivity by investing in infrastructure, health, education, and other broader social goals. And to stop destroying the environment on which human life depends. These initiatives may not work, but the goal is to get more Americans better off and put the country in a better position to compete with rival powers like China. This means win-win.

According to this professor of international relations at Harvard University, Republicans like Cruz like to argue about the need to defeat China, but he and others like him are doing everything they can to make that goal impossible. The author cites examples of outspoken talk of secession, opposition to vaccines, disregard for vigilance, and incitement to endless cultural wars that undermine hope for a successful foreign policy in the United States, victory in geopolitical rivalry with an equal rival. has it.

The analyst attributes these actions, such as blocking the approval of US ambassadors to important countries and vacancies, to the misconception of senators such as Cruz, who believe that these measures will make US foreign policy more effective but ultimately benefit China.

The report concludes: “If the motivation for separatism in the United States accelerates and this happens, the most vital US geopolitical asset will be wasted.”

End of message /

You can edit this post