American Dominance

--- Robert M. Liu

(1) What troubles George Soros?

It is in the news that Hungarian-born financier, George Soros, has decided to give a total of US$15.50 million to a few left-wing groups in an attempt to prevent George W. Bush from getting re-elected. US$5 million of this money will go to MoveOn.org, which is currently helping Howard Dean's campaign to win the White House. What troubles George Soros?

One possibility that I just cannot rule out is that the Bush administration's economic growth and job creation package may have caught those with huge short stock positions in a dilemma, as it has apparently steered the economy into a strong recovery mode, placing the Dow Jones Industrial Average in an uptrend.

Does George Soros hold huge short stock positions? I don't know. But not long ago, Soros disclosed that he held short positions on the U.S. dollar. That may be an indication that he might hold short stock positions too. Hopefully, he will disclose his short stock positions if any, so that we can judge whether his financial interests clash with the Bush administration's economic policy, which has created a bullish outlook for the economy and the stock market.

Speculation aside, George Soros has actually explained why he takes strong exception to the Bush administration's foreign policy. According to Soros, Bush is a U.S. supremacist whose foreign policy reminds him of Adolf Hitler's attempt to achieve German supremacy. Hence, by this George Soros logic, the United States of America under George W. Bush has somehow become a dangerous threat to the world.

George Soros is a billionaire with influence and good social connections, and so few would suspect that the old man might be out of his mind. But any sound-minded person should be able to see the difference between Adolf Hitler's intentions in the 1930s and 1940s and the goal of the Bush administration's military action in Iraq. For example, Adolf Hitler never intended to forgo his control of France and Eastern Europe including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.

Whereas with the approach of the 2004 presidential election, nothing would please the Bush administration more than a quick military pull-out from Iraq if such a move were feasible. Judging from the history of the United States, no responsible American president would recall U.S. troops from Iraq at this moment when Baathist Iraqi insurgents and terrorists try to stage a comeback.

(2) Iraq is the front line:

Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism. America must win this battle. It can be won with fewer U.S. troops and more U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police. The number of U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers has already surpassed 130,000. What's more, this number will grow as America invests more resources in building the Iraqi Civil Defense Forces.

Once a U.S.-trained Iraqi intelligence service is in place, the advantage held by the U.S.-led coalition and the U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police will sooner or later reach a critical mass sufficient to overwhelm the Baathist insurgents and terrorists.

By then, U.S. troops could move to safer bases, reducing their exposure, and let the U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police handle front-line security jobs. When and if an emergency situation erupts, U.S. troops stationed at safer bases could be dispatched with high speed to destroy any enemy targets. This way, the U.S. military will continue to perform as the best fighting force in the world, not as a baby-sitter.

Like politics, war is a business. It is about money. He who has the deeper pocket is going to win. George Soros says, "Money can buy talent", and is using his money to buy left-wing "talent". Well, if money can buy talent, money may also buy good intelligence and good soldiers in Iraq and eventually America's victory over the Iraqi insurgents.

Unfortunately, George Soros refuses to contribute anything to America's effort to topple Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein and restore Iraqi sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Instead, he must equate the liberation of Iraq to Adolf Hitler's attempt to establish German supremacy in Europe. In doing so, he seems to have forgotten that the Saddam Hussein regime was a terror-sponsor and as such had to be eliminated for the sake of global and regional security.

(3) What is "U.S. supremacy"?

By now, I have learned quite a few terms from the political left with regard to America's global position: U.S. imperialism, U.S. hegemony, U.S. neo-colonialism; U.S. supremacy etc. In my opinion, these terms all refer to America's dominant position in world affairs and its effort to maintain its dominant position since the end of World War II. In brief, they refer to American dominance.

Apparently, the political left doesn't like American dominance. Hence, these unpleasant names. Earlier this year before America took military action against Saddam Hussein, it staged huge "peace demonstrations" against the Bush administration. It would rather see Iraqi terror-sponsor Saddam Hussein stay in power than allow America to help establish a friendly government in Iraq, lest a friendly Iraqi government should enhance American dominance.

Basically speaking, there are two camps with two completely different views: the conservative camp and the left-wing camp.

The conservative camp believes: American dominance is an essential factor in today's world peace and stability. Therefore, American dominance should not only be maintained, but strengthened, because without American dominance, the capitalist system of the Free World with its modern civilization would collapse, causing hundreds of millions of people around the world to suffer.

The conservatives want to conserve the Free World's capitalist system and modern civilization dominated by the United States. Whereas the left-wing camp holds opposing views and keeps attacking American dominance.

(4) How did the U.S. come to dominate?

One hundred years ago, there was no such thing as American dominance. At that time, Great Britain was a big player. France, Germany and Russia were competing with each other. In the Far East, China was a poor and weak country under the Qing Dynasty trying to fend off the influences of Western powers and Japan's aggressive encroachments.

What the United States wanted in the old days was trade. It pushed for open-door policy so that American merchants could do more business around the world. When World War I broke out, America was safe and secure as it was separated from Europe by the Atlantic. There was no reason for America to get involved in the war on a huge scale.

In the 1930s, there was no such thing as American dominance, either. Adolf Hitler became German Chancellor on January 30, 1933, and immediately began to persecute Jews and prepare for war. Great Britain and France didn't do anything to stop him. Nor did the United States.

In 1938, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact with Hitler to appease him, allowing Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland (western part of Czechoslovakia). In March 1939, Hitler conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. On September 1, 1939, Nazi German troops invaded Poland. On September 3, 1939, Great Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Nazi Germany. That was the beginning of World War II.

What about America? Was there anything remotely resembling American global leadership? No. The United States of America didn't want to get involved in the war. Why should it? Separated from Europe by the Atlantic, it appeared to be safe and secure. On September 5, 1939, America proclaimed neutrality in the war when German troops crossed the Vistula River in Poland.

Although the policy of non-involvement appeared to be a smart move in the beginning, the events that occurred subsequently proved it otherwise. On December 7, 1941, Japanese bombers attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. Thus, America had no choice but to fight back. At a great cost in human lives, it got deeply involved not only in the Pacific War against Japan, but in Europe as well helping Great Britain to fight Hitler.

The lessons we can draw from this piece of history include: (1) The desire to avoid war does not necessarily ensure peace. (2) Prevention is better than cure. Preemption is better than inaction. As an ancient Chinese maxim goes, "He who takes preemptive action puts himself in a strong position." (3) The cost of inaction is always much higher than the cost of preemption.

After World War II ended in 1945, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union began. This competition between the two superpowers in the world led to two major regional wars, the Korean War (1950-53) and the Vietnam War (1966-75), plus the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States became the only superpower in the world.

Here, history shows America moved into its dominant position, not because it wanted to, but because it was driven by international geopolitical circumstances. It was actually fighting for its own survival and the survival of the Free World.

If America had not fought Nazi Germany and Japan, Hitler and militarist Japan would have dominated the world. If America had not fought the Cold War, the Soviet Union would have dominated the world. America fought those battles and won. As a result, America now rightfully dominates the world. Those opposed to American dominance actually have a problem accepting a simple historical reality.

(5) Competition:

Whether in business or in geopolitics or in any other area of man's activity, there is always competition. As a natural phenomenon dictated by the laws of Nature, competition is inevitable.
War is an extreme form of competition, though no man in his sound mind likes war. But since ancient times, mankind has lived with this cruel phenomenon. Chances are we cannot wish it away.

Different civilizations compete with each other. A superior civilization tends to spread its influences. For instance, British colonialism was actually a historical phenomenon through which a superior civilization spread its influences throughout the world.

Languages compete with each other too, and the English language has emerged as the winner -- an indication that the Anglo-Saxon civilization is not inferior. French president Chirac doesn't like the strong influence of the English-speaking culture. But can we turn back history's clock two hundred years and let Bonaparte Napoleon beat Great Britain, so that today we all speak French and salute President Chirac as the leader of the Free World?

Since every competition has its beginning and its end, it cannot last forever. Somebody has to win, and somebody else has to lose, before a competition can end. Once a competition ends, the winner emerges and becomes the dominant player, while the losers disappear. As the number of players decreases, consolidation and integration ensue.

This natural process of competition, consolidation, winner domination, and eventually integration happens in business, in geopolitics, as well as in culture and civilization. The superior always beats the inferior. It is a simple law of Nature. What's more, our likes and dislike don't have any impact on Nature's laws.

Take the English language as an example. The folks at the United Nations speak English. All the schools, colleges and universities in China teach English. When I was a kid in Shanghai, China, I spoke Shanghaiese. Now, I speak and write in English. Whether you believe English is a superior language or not, the entire world now speaks English. Shouldn't we call this phenomenon global cultural integration?

(6) America's stark choice:

Oftentimes, America is confronted with a stark choice -- either America fights to win and dominate or America sits idly around watching its enemy grow in strength and expand throughout the world posing a more serious threat in the future.

For instance, if there had been an administration capable of seeing imminent danger in the late 1990s, America could have taken military action to destroy the Taliban/al-Qaeda terrorist regime in Afghanistan and wipe out Osama bin Laden's terrorist training and recruiting camps there, shortly after bin Laden declared war on America and bombed U.S. embassies in both Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

But the incompetent Clinton administration chose a "low-cost" course of action which didn't call for the use of U.S. ground troops. It fired a few rockets here and there and then left Osama bin Laden's terror group to its own devices, watching it grow and expand throughout the world. Such half measures have proven to be inadequate to deter America's enemies.

9/11 is one more tragic testimonial to America's need to take preemptive action before the situation deteriorates beyond repair. But any U.S. preemptive action tends to make America look aggressive and is sure to invite virulent criticisms of American dominance from the political left. Members of the public need to make a choice between American dominance and another 9/11.

(7) The natural outcome of competition:

Since the end of World War II, America has won almost every global competition in economic, political and military areas, because it has a superior economic system, a superior political system, and a superior military force. In consequence, America has established its global dominant position.

American dominance is the outcome of decades of global competition among the world's various nations, that is, the natural outcome of a natural process determined by the laws of Nature. Competition leads to consolidation and winner domination, which in turn is likely to move the world toward global integration dominated by American capitalism.

No matter where we live, somebody has to call the shots and play a dominant role. In a household, it is either the father or the mother or the eldest son or the eldest daughter who has to call the shots. In a business organization, the chief executive officer has to call the shots.

In our Global Village, somebody has to call the shots too. And history has already decided that somebody is the United States, not France, not Germany, not Russia. I know there are lots of people, especially on the political left, who refuse to accept this simple historical reality. The question is: If American dominance is wrong, whose dominance would be right?

We live in a world of reality where our choices are limited. Those who abhor American dominance like George Soros must offer us something more reliable and trustworthy than American dominance. Without America as the world economy's main pillar and the Free World's protector, modern civilization as we know it could plunge into chaos overnight.

Look at Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltic states. Wary and skeptical of Russia's intentions, they all want to be part of the European Union. Yet at the same time, they all love American dominance, because it is American dominance which guarantees their freedom and independence. They look to America, not France, for military protection and national security.

Apparently unhappy about this reality, French president Chirac keeps browbeating those smaller Eastern European nations as if he were the patriarch of the EU household. But can he offer them anything more reliable and trustworthy than American global dominance to ensure their freedom and independence in the event of a Russian attempt to re-control them?

November 16, 2003