by tom moodyComments Off on rhetorical questions re: global ordering
Discussing "the new OPEC deal to cut oil output – the cartel’s first since 2008," the UK-based newspaper City A.M. writes:
OPEC as a whole agreed to cut 1.2m barrels per day (bpd) from production from the beginning of the new year, with the Saudis themselves bearing the brunt of the cuts with a personal reduction agreed to at just under 500,000 bpd. But as OPEC now accounts for less than half of all energy output in the world, it is a very weakened cartel...
Placing this in a larger world context, City A.M. continues, at high wattage:
This, in its way, is as momentous a shift in global power as the stunning recent Brexit and Donald Trump votes. Whereas Brexit showed Europe to be in absolute decline, while the election of Trump brings to an abrupt end 70 years of the U.S. as the global ordering power, the Saudi’s meek surrender brings to a close the long age of OPEC domination of the world’s energy market. This year truly has seen the death of one world order, along with the uncertain birth of another.
Back up there: "The election of Trump brings to an abrupt end 70 years of the U.S. as the global ordering power." This is a UK writer's perception. Let's assume it has validity. Does this mean the election of Hillary Clinton would have continued the U.S.'s role as a "global ordering power"? Is that term a euphemism for empire? If all the above is true, wouldn't a vote against Hillary be a vote against US imperial aspirations, or a de facto empire? And what is wrong with that? As Holden says in Blade Runner, "they're just questions, Leon."