Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro The Birth of the First American Empire, Monday, September 15, 2003, translated by Cinderella Bloggerfeller , that echoes the ideas of some of the writers of this thread.

---

"Ground Zero" in Manhattan: on September 11, 2001 the first American empire was born. The first empire? Apart from incursions into their immediate environs, the United States had only become a de facto empire in the past century more as a consequence of their economic power than their political will: the inverse of British or French imperialism. Traditionally, American foreign policy was anti-imperialist, against European colonization and against the Soviet Empire. American armies only ever went to war reluctantly, they only stayed in Korea or Germany as bulwarks against imminent aggression; no gesture was more popular in the United States than "bringing the boys back home". September 11 has changed all that.

The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by occupations which we can predict will be long-term, are the result of a new strategy, at once justified by September 11 and legitimated by the theories of the ruling neo-conservatives. Following the doctrine now dominant, pre-emptive attack and a physical presence in those places where terrorism emerges are the right responses to this threat. No longer is any corner of the world safe from an American operation followed by occupation. American soldiers, far from staying at home and waiting for another Pearl Harbor, will forestall the enemy; the guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan will change nothing, on the contrary. A new state of affairs which is not just military, these interventions aim to create viable and, if possible, democratic states.

...

Faced with the new American empire, Europe, without army, a unified command, or a constitution of its own, remains in a state of confusion. Its slow growth, worsened by the ruminations of the ecologists, is little by little transforming it into a museum which might be pleasant to live in for the elite but offers no windows of opportunity for the coming generations. Since the euro has not replaced the dollar, and our social-democratic economy is no alternative to the efficiency of the American market, Europe offers no development plan either for poor countries or for its own poor. Internally, it is divided by the pacifist, pro-UN diplomacy of France and Germany; externally, this diplomacy rallies to the support of some very dubious states.

Europe no longer appears the torchbearer of the Rights of Man, but the peevish advocate of the rights of rulers and of the status quo. At the beginning of our new era, a project for European civilisation is nowhere to be found, so much so that the newcomers from Central Europe and the Anglo-Saxon north are beginning to ask themselves: does the European Union have anything to do with the century we live in?

The UN is faring even worse. Long paralysed by the Cold War, the United Nations is now paralysed by its very nature. The Anglo-American snub in the Security Council over the control of Iraqi weapons did not cause but simply revealed the yawning gap between the UN Charter and its ambitions. This Council, the legacy of the 1945 peace accords, no longer represents what the world has since become : the absence of Brazil, Japan, Germany, South Africa and India means it cannot be considered a legitimate global board of directors. Until this is rectified, it is vain to expect good world governance.

The situation is just as chaotic in the general assembly; its make-up is based on the assumption that every nation is a genuine one and that all leaders enjoy equal legitimacy. Since the majority of these states are kleptocracies at best and tyrannies at worst, it is obvious that the Charter of the United Nations can no longer be considered the basis of any kind of world order. This obsolete text ignores unprecedented situations like Afghanistan or Kosovo; de facto states will multiply, in Central Asia and Africa, as de jure states vanish.

In the mean time, who would exercise global governance if not the Americans, with a few Europeans to make up the numbers? Who would replace them in emergencies? Criticism -which is indispensable - of this first American empire would be more legitimate if it were associated with a project for the complete overhaul of the UN. Since nobody is proposing one and the tyrants - a majority - would not want it, the UN, the Red Cross Mark Two, will be confined to humanitarian work. It remains to be seen how it will acquit itself.

Where are the alternatives? In the 1980s, there was talk of the decline of the West, of the emegence of new poles of power that the prophets of the time situated in Japan, China, sometimes Brazil, less often in India and never in Africa. But who still expects an alternative model to the American empire? China? She is making progress, chaotically, thanks to foreign investment and internal repression. Brazil? She wavers between liberty and statism. India? Too exotic…

The curiosity aroused ten years ago by "Asian values" has disappeared ever since the Confucian world rallied to the American model, hastily and without too much soul-searching. Finally, the metamorphosis of the USSR into a simple regional economy based on oil and gas has facilitated the great transition to universal liberalism. Even if the American empire does not possess the recipe for happiness, nobody in the East or the South would dispute it has a recipe for effectiveness.

In sum, the great adventure of the burgeoning century is not the clash of civilisations, which was never anything but a Hollywood-style metaphor with no real basis in fact; it will be the demonstation of the failure or the universality of the three great principles embodied by the first American empire: democracy, individualism and consumption. Facing it, there no longer exists either a Soviet model, or a Chinese or an Islamist one, nor a European alternative, not even a utopia. There only really remains the question posed by the American empire: to be Americanized or not to be? The century, it is true, is only three years old.

Well, it's a shame that you're friends let politics decide whether they should visit the United States. I mean, whoever the president is, the U.S. still has great things to see and do, and neither Bush nor anyone else would impede them from enjoying friends, family, and the good times you could show them while they were here. I detect a slight arrogance on their part as well.

Good article.

Well done yet again Booklady.
What country ever, ever provided more liberty and freedom for a greater amount of people than the U.S? We don't have to be loved by everyone. We are right and we are great and if that makes us arrogant, that's just too darn bad. I think that the arrogance of Americans is America's Black Legend.
Spaniards might be interested in knowing, although since I don't speak Spanish very well and all Spaniards treated me very well so I don't understand it myself, I have several Mexican friends who feel that the Spaniards are very arrogant people. But like I said, this has not been my experience. I found almost all Spaniards respectful and very very helpful and courteous.

Really, a sh*t of an article. Obviously this guy is against the way of thinking of most of the French and european citizens. He does not represent us at all, for each article like this, you can find twenty saying the opposite, this time by qualified people. When I have more time, I'll comment the details, editing this post.

I'm not saying it represents you all I'm just saying it points out facts.

I think he may push it a little too far when he alludes to the U.S. being the only power capable of policing the world.

However I think he does come close to the truth about the UN and EU though. They're not totally useless entities but, no one can deny that they DO have their share of problems that hinder them coming close the status they want to receive.

Ignacio I don't think any amount of articles from 'qualified people' you post will change anyone's opinion. They're not posted here to be like 'see I'm right'. We're not writing college essays here. They're just posted to show opinions. Articles are simply that. Writings from people lucky enough to have their opinions published. Of course it's obvious he is against French and European way of thinking because the collective mindset is against the US right now. However I think it's especially refreshing that he's able to forgo modesty and point out the faults of Europe.

OK, I agree mainly about UN and EU big difficulties to take decisions.

In the UN, MAINLY when these decisions oppose the USA, because the usual thing was that the USA bullyied or bought the rest, like Bush's guys tried to do with Mexico, Chile, and others at the Security Council (a shame!).

Sometimes, it's better to act and some it's better to wait and see. I agree that EU's position in the Jugoslavian crisis simply didn't exist, and the USA helped to solve the conflict, although with a certain consensus,and within the UN. The UE countries and many others helped, although the USA did most. There they did well (by the way, it was not Bush, was he?).

In Afghanistan, they probably had right to retailate, because they REALLY hosted Al-Quaeda camps, and were helping them in many senses. There, the problem was the way the "coalition" did it: bombing the country to the starvation and killing hundreds of terrorists along with thousands of innocent people. Other countries (EU, Japan ) paid most of the expenses of this war (huge!), we have troops there, as Germany and others.

In Irak, there is simply no reason at all for that attack, and the EU and the UN did not agree to act, Because nothing had to be done .

Invading a country only to make some oil tycoons earn lots of money at the expense of the Iraki and american soldiers' lifes and distracting the American population from the recession in the country with a "let's unite against those bad boys and forget the probelms".

This is a very old trick. The aregntinians had the Falklands war because the generals needed a distraction for the raging masses, and when there is a war everybody forgets the most urgent needs to side behind the flag.

Fortunately we don't have a Bush or one of those argentinian generals controlling the country (Spain), but still, we have a d*mned brownnoser who wants to acquire an international reputation in the shade of warlord Bush, but he will continue to be small in both senses (phisycal and as a statesman).

I do not blame the americans, although I consider that a country is responsible for what their soldiers do, for people can somewhat oppose their government like we did in Spain (90% of us was opposing war). This did not stop us from occupying the country, but, at least, we did not take part in the war itself. Had the americans and english do the same ...

And, of course, one cannot include all of the americans in this responsability. there were many that said the truth in despite of the bad moment and put in danger or even lost their jobs and reputation. To those, I must say "hats off", because I am not sure that I would dare to do the same in a country that's great in many aspects, but that in this is so few free (to oppose a war).

So, I say they are responsible, but the real one to blame is Mr. Bush (maybe Mr. Blair too), and the manipulated media (I agree) Mickey refers to, which make so difficult to the N.Am. people to have an objetive and plural info. Well, some do have it, but I know it's difficult.

To a minor extent, to blame too the "vassals" almost fascist (this time, because of their ideology) Aznar and Berlusconi, allies of Bush and Blair, with the latest praising Mussolini, and the former with half of his government formed by OPUS DEI (an integrist catolic sect).

About my comment that it doesn't represent us at all, I said this because this phrase:

Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro ...

sounds to me like: "look, even a Frenchman in a French newspaper says this". May be it was my imagination, but I wanted to state the point that the great majority of intellectuals and population here in the EU are against the war.

I don't believe the point of the article is to gather pro-war sentiment or say the US is right and everyone else is wrong.

The point of the article is that the US seems to be the only viable power compared to the others, i.e. EU, UN, Soviets, China. The article is just stating the situation that exists. It is not stating the US is right for invading Iraq.

Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro ...

Just some article by some Guy.....