Hillary at the CFR

Posted: 23/09/2011 by zandtao in Finance, Insight, War
Tags: , ,

(added to CFRWatch page)

Interpreting what the politicians say is fraught with danger so claiming I can follow what is happening in US politics is arrogant. Yes I have some insight but my knowledge of the US system is weak – my knowledge of the UK system is better but it is still very weak. I am an observer not a whistleblower – I cannot know. What is important in watching is to place what is being said in context, and the context of this Hillary speech is helpful. Remember she is addressing the War Council – Council on Foreign Relations, and I suspect that she is trying to convince some of them – many of them? For those who dispute the validity of watching the CFR, read this banter at the beginning of her speech:-

“I have been often to I guess the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Who are the CFR? Individually I have little idea but to me they represent the corporatocracy. So to place her speech in context it is necessary to know that, and focus on what the corporatocracy wants. What the corporatocracy wants does not require any insight, they govern with the sole purpose of making a profit. Whilst the corporatocracy is composed of faceless individuals it does have an institutional identity – it wants profit and it does not care how. To understand global politics and US foreign policy it is necessary to see that what is described as politics is a public version of this private agenda – to make profits for the corporatocracy. But I think it is also important to understand that these faceless manipulators have different agendas, their profits come from different sources. The MIC make profits from war, do the banks? Oil companies make profits by controlling the flow of oil so in the Middle East the interests of the oil companies coincide with the interests of the MIC. But in a recession most of the interests coincide – the people are poor they cannot buy so there are no profits. The interests of the MIC are always war, and it is a clear indication that the Republicans are backed by the MIC, for example in the US budget deficit discussion the war budget was off the table. And quite naturally from both parties at the time so was taxing the rich. I suspect Obama has put “taxing the rich” back on the table as an election ploy.

So the recession is hitting the corporatocracy now. The banking section of the corporatocracy has pocketed huge amounts of taxpayers’ money from the bailout, but they have been so greedy not even Obama can sweetmouth them into getting more. So now the corporatocracy need to fight the recession, a recession they created – see Money Masters and Inside Job. And this is where the foreign policy comes in. Until 2006 US Foreign Policy was belligerent and isolationist, now they realise that to make more profits the world needs to trade with the US, and this is what Hillary’s speech is about.

But that speech has to be balanced, the corporatocracy has to see that what she presents represents their interests. Historically if you look at foreign policy as represented by Pax Americana and RAD, there was aggression of Pax Americana, cooling off during the Clinton administration, aggression during Bush Junior as represented by RAD, and now there is a recession where there is economic need. And this is where Hillary’s speech comes in, here is the clip and here is a transcript.

To begin with she ingratiates with their egos by playing to the power of the War Council, and then she states the position of the US in the world. For those who still believe the US contributes to democracy, look at this embedded clip as to how assured she is of the US position as world leader:-

The positive aspect of this clip is that she says in concert with others, would Bush ever have said this? What is clear throughout the talk is that she stresses this leadership position, and as a response to those who maybe would want to take advantage of her less hawkish position she said this:-

“And to these foes and would-be foes let me say our focus in diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests and above all our people, vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military.” Appeasing the hawks.

However she does promote some caring values typically:-

“I’ve also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of odds. For almost 36 years I have worked as an advocate for children, women, and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children’s college tuition, and afford health care. And all that I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people. The laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose future will depend on global economic recovery. The farmer or small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation. The families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Children in every land who deserve a brighter future.”

She is a politician and interested in power, she is willing to accept Bilderberg manipulation to gain that power. I see this apparent caring side of her as a political address to her audience that they need to be something other than just the War Council in this day and age, for the US to come out of recession the world needs to perceive a US caring side to give others an excuse to trade with a caring nation. But in truth I see it as a bit of conscience sneaking through as well – secondary to her political ambition of power of course.

The context of this talk is that she is saying to the hawks we will still be belligerent, but to finance she says the emphasis is enforced international cooperation to enable economic exploitation under the guise of trade:-

“We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.

…. We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. “

“We’ll use our power to convene”.

“Today we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world. First, no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels, from NGOs to al Qaeda, from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter.

Second, most nations worry about the same global threats — from nonproliferation to fighting disease to counter-terrorism, but also face very real obstacles for reasons of history, geography, ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action.

So these two facts demand a different global architecture, one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division. So we will exercise American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places like the Council call “collective action problems,” and what I call obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.”

So what are her foreign policy strategies? Smart power appears to be a buzzword of her approach:-

“Smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas: First, we intend to update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners; second, we will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us; third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power; fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas; and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.”

Vehicles of Cooperation
Principled Engagement
Integrate civilian and military in conflict
Leverage using economic strength and power of our example

Enforced cooperation – the US provide the vehicles and will engage with all. They will impose development using the leverage of economic strength and the world will follow US example. And in areas of conflict Halliburton will be happy as there will still be 100% exploitation – munitions, mercenary security and civilian reconstruction contracts using the money of those countries (integrating civilian and military in conflict).

In the end these strategies will maybe be as harmful as war. The rest of the world will be forced to comply. Allies such as NATO will gather round the flame, do the US bidding to gain from economic fallout. Meanwhile money will start redirecting itself towards the US through enforced economic trade – the unfairness of Fair Trade. The consequence of such development strategies will have to be further hunger and starvation in the Third World as the weak are further bullied by the Big and supporting cronies. But surely that has got to be better than the death and the destruction of the “War on Terror”:-

Iraq Deaths Estimator

Again appealing to US jingoism she finished with:-

“More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right president and we have the American people — diverse, committed and open to the future. Now all we have to do is deliver.”

  1. […] rhetoric translate into foreign policy? Hillary does not advocate foreign interventionism except when she attends CFR, I assess Trump would not advocate it either but that it would just happen anyway. Trump’s […]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.