An Approach to US Foreign Policy

Posted: 18/09/2011 in Insight, Struggle, War
Tags: ,

(added to NWO Plan page)

Are all left-wing parties the same? Of course not, I have discussed it a little here. So why does the position of the left generally assume that the policy of the corporatocracy remains the same? If it doesn’t, is it possible to discern from the outside – we are not privy to the inner workings of the Bilderberg group, Washington, Downing Street etc. Do we listen to the politicians? If we are wise, not, when they are talking they present positions we want to hear – to facilitate their agendas – usually maintaining power. But politicians such as Obama and Hillary need to be able to inform foreign governments of their true agenda – to enable their diplomacy to work, so if we know where that agenda is presented then we can begin to observe.

For example are the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya the same? If they are not the same then what are the differences? Can a connection between the actions and foreign policy be discerned?

I contend that the current era of US neo-colonialism began with Reagan. there was a Reagan-Thatcher alliance that was well touted in the press. Significantly at the time the economic policy of monetarism was presented. I was teaching at the time and we were all angry at the possible privatisation of teaching – it is happening now on a grand scale first in the US and to a less extent in the UK. In the US big money is being invested through benefaction supposedly of people like Broad, Gates and Walmart, and we are beginning to see the results with school failures whilst owners profit. This is an example of seeing policy become practice, and it doesn’t always take 30 years.

It is not my intention to go back as far as Reagan but in the last 15 years there have been good indications of US foreign policy that have been borne out in practice beginning with Pax Americana, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – RAD, and now Hillary’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. To begin with I want to look at Obama’s foreign policy through Hillary’s speech and then Chomsky’s analysis of that policy.

I have watched the first 20 minutes of Hillary’s speech to the War Council (Council of Foreign Relations) on July 15 2009,and it feels like an important speech – similar to the RAD a policy setter. It is hard to judge these matters not having tried to analyse US Foreign Policy before but it does appear positive in the immediate future. Pax Americana sets the agenda as a US hegemony – sole power, but this hegemony was warlike establishing the hegemony as a giant to be afraid hoping that you are not one of the unlucky countries that has oil and a dictatorship in the Middle East. They tried a dubious invasion of Afghanistan and their power was not threatened internally, how could Afghanistan be considered a threat? This set the tone for the corporatocratic hawks to make war profits in Iraq and Libya. In the early Bush junior years it looked like Iran and others would follow.

I think this speech is very important as a statement of current US policy. First of all it is to the War Council, and the CFR is a powerful policy-setting body. Next it is Hillary, and let’s try to understand why that is so important. Obama is the ultimate in political charades, he will say and do anything to get into power and stay there, but policy and practice is not important, this he leaves to his appointees. And when you look at his appointees you see the corporatocracy, bankers run his finance etc. So it would be reasonable to conclude he would allow Hillary to run foreign policy. Now Hillary is connected to Bilderberg so she has those credentials, she is talking to the War Council – what you might consider as the public policy face of the corporatocracy. She is trying to win the non-voting election, will the War Council back her?

Without going into detail let me summarise an important point in what her speech contains – enforced international economic cooperation. You WILL do business with us – our way. This is imprtant in two ways. First of all it says that the isolationist policies of improving the economy by War on Terror is not working. Whilst clearly the MIC has gained the economy as a whole has not. The bankers are under severe threat with the recession. There is growing public awareness of banking policy that exploits, fails and causes recession, bailout that also fails, and the greed that awards huge bonuses. Attempts to work through the recession internally have not produced dividend as unemployment rises, there is increased social tension, and most significantly not enough money circulating in the economy to create an economic upturn.

So US foreign policy is turning outwards in search of that money. Whilst certain companies are benefitting through the 100% exploitation of war (discussed here), there is little knock-on effect. These companies have a complete stranglehold on the Iraqi economy, for example. Oil is now controlled by the US and the soldiers are there to guard it. The contractors (40,000 military 60,000 contractors) have moved in, and with the complicity of the puppet government are extracting the available money out of the country. However policy is reflecting a recognition that this 100% exploitation is worthwhile and can be extended. British colonialism has taught that maintaining troops in colonies is far too expensive, and not an efficient way of extracting wealth. British neo-colonialism developed from this recognition but they were gazumped by the Bretton Woods strategy that saw US exploitation of the Second World War. The US gained the wealth from taking over the British Empire without having to pay the price of military occupation. And of course Hiroshima gave them the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to be as forceful as necessary if they were threatened. War on Terror is the latest example of that ultimate threat where a war continues in Afghanistan whilst their supposed objective – Osama bin Laden – is dead. In Iraq Saddam Hussein has also been exceuted, puppets have been installed, huge Iraqi casualties have resulted, and all this demonstrates the callousness with which the corporatocracy and the US government will enforce its foreign policy. They will go to war without an enemy – War on Terror, simply to create war profits.

OK so the threat has been established and reinforced, but the economy is only partially improving; the profits are not occurring across the board Foreign policy is not that internationally countries must cooperate economically – far more than in the past. Having been isolated such economic imperiousness was not a requirement. Subjugation does not produce a free flow of money. Economically it is well known that stability produces more economic wealth. The War on Terror is not stable, it is violent and exploitative. Enforced cooperation is far more stable, this is Hillary’s policy.

As a peace activist I hope this works. We have had nearly two decades of war exploitation, moving back to economic exploitation might well produce less deaths if there is sufficient cooperation – if governments can forget the damage done. And if Obama is voted back in.

or download here, transcript here

Here now is a brief look at Chomsky’s view of Obama’s foreign policy

This is based on a discussion on Democracy Now on 15th March 2010, nearly a year after Hillary’s speech at the CFR. Here is the whole interview, but it is mostly about Chomsky, himself, and not just on Obama’s foreign policy. The current policy discussed focused on Iran (2010 before Libya), and what was discussed fitted clearly within Hillary’s foreign policy. Again this is good news as a Peace activist. He says that Obama’s policy follows on from a shift in The Bush administration policy. Chomsky said When Obama came into office, or when he was elected, one high Bush official — I think it was Condoleeza Rice — predicted that Obama’s foreign policy would be a continuation of Bush’s second term. The first and second term of Bush were quite different. The first term was aggressive, arrogant, kicking the world in the face, even allies, and it had such a negative effect—this is in action as well as manner—that US prestige in the world sank to the lowest point it’s ever been. That was really harmful to the interests of those who actually set foreign policy—business world and corporate interests and, you know, state planners and so on. So there was a lot of criticism of Bush right from the mainstream in the first term. Well, you know, the second term was somewhat different. For one thing, some of the most extreme figures were kicked out. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a couple of others, were sent off to pasture. They couldn’t get rid of Cheney, because he was the administration, so can’t dismantle it. But a lot of the others went, and policy shifted more towards the norm, to the more-or-less centrist norm.

Hillary’s speech is in line with this but the strategy of enforced cooperation is much more stridently expressed by her. In the discussion on Iran the emphasis was not on US confrontation with Iran but US partners, in this case Russian and China doing the dirty work. In fact Chomsky saw as a stumbling block to US policy the failure of Brazil to work for the US enforced cooperation. He discussed an FT article in which Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions was that problem, a problem enhance by “President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”. I suspect there will be the engagement with Russia and China over time, the Arab Spring and NATO support for Libya being temporary events that I have diverted focus from Iran.

As far as I can see Hillary’s CFR policy fits in with US response to the Arab Spring – with the apparent exception of Libya? At present (18/09/11) most right-minded pundits are angry about the excessive NATO involvement with Libya. Obama quickly jumped in with support for Libya’s rag, tag and bobtail even to the extent where his support is illegal under the constitution. This could be seen as an extension of first-term Bush policy, or it could be interpreted as an opportunity fitting in with Hillary’s CFR policy. Look at the Arab Spring, there have been many opportunities for a war-like Bush approach to jump in, get troops on the ground and make vast profits by exploiting several Middle Eastern debacles of the Iraq style. Tunisia and Egypt have passed by without a war footing. Then came Libya and there was a chance to oust Qaddafi, a major thorn in the US vision. With years of difficult cooperation with Qaddafi they could get rid of him. But even then Gilbert Achcar believed that US partners, Britain particularly, were attempting to keep the Qaddafi infrastructure there:-

But Libya could be seen differently in light of Hillary’s statement. The US took a backseat, and quite clearly the NATO aggression became focused on the UK and France for their acrive involvement in the Rebels struggle. As the violence in Libya gets worse the UK and France will become the targets. What is interesting are the fears of the African Union discussed here by Mahmood Mamdani on Democracy Now Wednesday Sept 15:-

And what about Syria? If Syria is not ripe for an early Bush-style NATO intervention, I don’t know what is. This crazy dictator, al Assad, is killing many democracy protestors. It would be very easy for the US to find Syrian rag, tag and bobtails but they are attempting to support the democratic movement by official sanctions and rumoured NATO forces giving support.

When you combine this analysis of Libya and Syria with Hillary’s CFR policy, you see a consistency, and evidence for global stability. Hopeful but it does mean that we need to fear the consequences of the policy even more for the Third world. But it is not WAR, thank God.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s