It's more that you are on the right side in a unipolar world. When the world shifts to multipolarity in the next few years, the problem will solve itself.
I'm a globalist and all but when people say "multipolar" doesn't that usually mean "the USA shouldn't rule everyone, I want to also rule over some countries "
Unless you happen to not be aligned with or really on the wrong side of that fabled ideal power monopole. It can quickly knock you from ignorance to reality. Imagine Russia was that monopole of power. Or look no further than a dictatorship. Great if your interests align or you're willing to bend them until they do, hell if they don't.
The US is the closest thing we have to a monopole these days and I'm sure it's sweet for some and very bitter for others.
"According to a 2024 analysis by The Washington Post, 60% of low-income countries were under some form of U.S. financial sanction. The analysis also concluded that the U.S. imposes three times as many sanctions as any other country or international body." - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions
Really quite ridiculous that there are sanctions on something like 1/3 of the world.
From that same link, financial sanctions against a country can be one of any of the following:
* authority to prohibit U.S. citizens from engaging in financial transactions with the individuals, entities, or governments on the list, except by license from the U.S. government
* requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions,
* diplomatic immunity waived, to allow families of terrorism victims to file for civil damages in U.S. courts,
* tax credits for companies and individuals denied, for income earned in listed countries,
* duty-free goods exemption suspended for imports from those countries, and
* prohibition of U.S. Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by countries on the list.
If we look at the map on that same page, we can see that very few countries have a total financial sanction such as the likes of Iran.
> Really quite ridiculous that there are sanctions on something like 1/3 of the world.
Sanctions are one of the de facto tools in the arsenal of American soft diplomacy. To be frank, the US has so many sanctions because the USD is so powerful.
> the US has so many sanctions because the USD is so powerful
That's appealing to sanctions' effectiveness. It's unclear they are. Instead, they're a potent signalling mechanism that's more palatable than shipping arms or worse, soldiers.
I'm not sure I understand. That's exactly the point of sanctions, to use the power of the US economy and the USD to exert American influence. You're right, they're not always effective at achieving their immediate goals, but they signal US disapproval and help pursue long-term goals without shipping those arms or soldiers anywhere.
Ridiculous in what sense? Perhaps those low-income countries should get their shit together and stop sponsoring terrorists, introduce multiparty democracy with free elections, allow free-market capitalism, extradite wanted criminals, and adhere to the treaties that they've ratified. The USA is under no obligation to trade with unfriendly countries.
Is it? Why should a random third world country be allowed to trade with Russia, Iran, North Korea or China? If anything, it would make sense if there were more sanctions, not less, with how things are going.
> The next day after Autherine was dismissed the paper came out with this headline: 'Things are quiet in Tuscaloosa today. There is peace on the campus of the university of Alabama.' Yes things were quiet in Tuscaloosa. yes there was peace on the campus, but it was peace at a great price. It was peace that had been purchased at the exorbitant price of an inept trustee board succoming to the whims and carprices of a vicious mob. It was peace that had been purchased at the price of allowing mobocracy to reign supreme over democracy. It was peace that had been purchased at the price of the capitulating to the forces of darkness. This is the type of peace that all men of goodwill hate. It is the type of peace that is obnoxious. It is the type of peace that stinks in the nostrils of the almighty God.
Of course, you could either view this sentiment as trivially applying to international politics or so different as to be a category error. But it's enough of an opening to suggest that these loaded terms are not as easily transferrable to ethical context as invested parties might want you to believe. It is difficult for folks to place their values firmly before external pressures when a country is much less empathizable with than an obviously abused person, but I think americans would be surprised at how giving a little might invite a larger revelation about their role in the world stage than desired by the powers that be.
I do not want to find out that hegemonic stability theory is false, that would definitely make the rest of my lifespan worse, even if the odds are remote
Sure, this is the natural reaction of people living in the imperial core, but this isn't true for the majority of people in the world, especially as global warming accelerates.
World-systems theory is typically the alternative to the theory that pax americana (i.e. peace for me but not for thee) is universally desirable.
I doubt the "next few years", and if the world shifts to multipolar, it won't solve the problem, it will just move everyone to the "bad side" where frictions big and small abound.
