Calistrat M. Atudorei: AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY (27)

09:31, 10 februarie 2020 | Actual | 588 vizualizări | Nu există niciun comentariu Autor:

We are continuing to publish on our site the fragments from the book AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY, by Romanian author Calistrat M. Atudorei which was published in English version very recently by printing house ”ePublishers” in Bucharest. 

Chapter 10/3. United States vs the Rest of the World            

USA’s Withdrawal from UNHRC and its Relationship with CPI 

Faced with these repeated criticisms from human rights countries in the case of Israel, the United States announced on 20 June 2018 its withdrawal from UN human Rights Council (UNHRC). According to Agerpres, the main reason stated by US Ambassador to UN, Nikki Haley, was “the UN’s chronic bias against Israel.” As additional argument, Haley reproached the Council that among its members there are states such as China, Venezuela, Cuba or the Democratic Republic of Congo, nations that “disregard” human rights. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States is “world leader in humanitarian assistance” and that is why “they will not take lessons from hypocrites.”52

Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said that US withdrawal is “a sad reflection of its one-dimensional human rights policy: defending Israeli abuses from criticism takes precedence above all else.”53

On the other hand, due to lack of effective measures to protect their population, Palestinian officials asked Hague-based Interna­tional Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an investigation into how Israeli soldiers killed dozens of Palestinian civilians and injured more than 1,000 other people on May 14, 2018, and officially accused Israeli government of carrying out apartheid policy towards Palestinian population. The United States response was very prompt. The US State department immediately closed down the office of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, and John Bolton, US National Security counselor, appealed to straight threats to International Criminal Court magistrates. In a speech before The Federalist Society in Washington, John Bolton stated that “we will not allow ICC or any other organization to constrain Israel’s right to self- defense.”54

Given that US soldiers were charged with ICC for crimes against humanity for their military actions in Afghanistan, Bolton described possible ICC investigations in this direction as “a threat to America’s sovereignty.” He pointed out that “If the Court (ICC) comes after us, after Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly.” Bolton threatened that the United States would use any means “to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” He warned that US would impose sanctions against ICC court, would sue officials, and impose the same sanctions on any country that would support the investigation. “We don’t need ICC to tell us our duty or second-guess our decisions,”55 US National Security adviser said as well.

Regarding these unprecedented threats, the ICC’s officials (who are backed by UN) asserted that they are not intimidated or dissuaded and they will continue “undeterred” their investigations. Mark Ellis, chief executive of International Lawyers’ Association, declared:

The extraordinary attack launched by… Bolton against the ICC is not only in direct contradiction to the principle of accountability for war crimes, but reinforces the Trump administration’s repugnant policy of exceptionalism, where it demands adherence to international law by all countries, except itself.56

Indeed, the position of the United States is very difficult to justify in terms of inter-state cooperation conventions. Trump admi­nistration preferred to threaten International Criminal Court even before the Court had started any investigation into issues concerned and prior the delivery of any result. Why this aggressive reaction to conducting an investigation? If US officials were so sure that the United States or Israel did not commit any illegalities, wouldn’t it be more constructive to collaborate with international judges and bring legal, factual arguments to clarify things for everyone?

US behavior towards UN and ICC denotes, once more, self-positioning above international law and undisguised expression of an arrogant attitude that does not accept a different viewpoint. It is transparent that US officials’ increasing attempt is to substitute the membership quality with equal rights of the United States within international community with the one of coordinator, who sets the rules as they deem appropriate… 

The US is Perceived as the Greatest Threat to World Peace

Beyond the rhetoric full of democratic ideals repeated by Washington representatives and their acolytes, several experts of great prestige signaled that the United States follow in fact a dangerous path of defying international law.

For example, the prominent political analyst Samuel Huntington—who was director of Harvard International Business Center for nearly 50 years and coordinator of US National Security Council— noted that through its military intervention campaigns in other countries, the United States has come to be seen as “the leader of a ‘rogue regime’ and the single greatest external threat to other societies.”57

As for Robert Jervis, former president of American Political Science Association, he wrote in 2001 that “In the eyes of much of the world, the prime rogue state today is the United States.”58

John Mearsheimer, former director of International Security Policy in US, emphasized too in an article in Foreign Affairs that “Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics.” Mearsheimer expressed himself in the context of an analysis of the crisis in Ukraine, where he noted that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility.”59

Benjamin Barber, former presidential adviser and renowned international consultant, asserted that “the beacon of democracy, that world once most admired, has abruptly become the marker of war the world most fears” because “its leaders pursue a reckless militancy aimed at establishing an American empire of fear more awesome than any the terrorists can conceive.”60

Noam Chomsky, emeritus professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of several political analysis bestsellers, said in an interview with Euronews in 2015 that “US is world’s biggest terrorist.” He explained that this image was due, among other things, to the fact that.

The worst terrorist campaign in the world by far is the one that’s being orchestrated in Washington. That’s the global assassination campaign. There’s never been a terrorist campaign of that scale. The drone campaign – that’s exactly what it is. Over large parts of the world, the United States is systematically, publically, openly – there’s nothing secret about what I’m saying, we all know it – it’s carrying out regular campaigns to assassinate people who the US government suspects of intending to harm it someday.61

Many other leading intellectuals in the United States or other countries raised signaling the aggressive and destabilizing interna­tional relations politics deployed by the White House. Although the list could be very long, I mention here Paul Krugman, John Ikenberry, Arthur Schleisinger, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Andrew J. Bachevich, Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Lawrence Wittner, Richard Clarke, Francis Boyle, Alfred McCoy, Harold Pinter, Robert F. Kennedy jr., Pat Buchanan, Michael Ignatieff…

But maybe people’s reaction is an even more conclusive indicator. After the United States initiated in many countries special operations, government overthrows, or military invasions, opinion polls almost unanimously revealed that for most of the world’s population, America tends to become a threat of world peace itself. Numerous exit polls organized in countries of Middle East, North Africa, Europe or across all Western Hemisphere show consistently that US is perceived as main aggressor that destabilizes peace and security in the world.

Even before the Iraqi attack, there were “huge anti-war demonstra­tions all over the world,” as New York Times announced on February 17, 2003. It was reported that “Millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war.”62 The opposition reaction against the war was clearly underlined by the polls. Noam Chomsky shows in his paper Who Rules the World?that “Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls.”63

In Turkey, a survey was conducted in early 2003 to see if the population would agree with the government’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq, as US administration asked. As 95% of the Turkish population opposed, Turkish government refused to take part in the attack on Iraq.64

Another study worth taking note of is the one conducted by Time magazine, also in early 2003, in several European countries. The subjects were asked which nations in their opinion represent the greatest risk to peace. The result was surprising: 80% of the respondents indicated the United States as the first, while Iraq and North Korea, highly criticized by media, and hardly scored 7–8% each.65

In January 2003, Financial Times showed too that Canadians fear that “the biggest risk to world peace is on their doorstep.”66 The article presented results of a survey that denoted the same thing in this area too: the United States is perceived as the greatest threat to world peace.

During the bombing of Iraq, in March 2003, Washington Post showed that another survey mentioned that almost 95% of the respondents rejected the idea that the United States could succeed in creating “a more democratic Arab or Muslim world.”67 The article’s main idea is that most Arabs considered instead that through the war in Iraq the US actually sought “control of Arab oil and submission of Palestinians to the will of Israel.” In fact, the reaction of the Arab population to American actions in the Middle East intensified in recent years, which greatly contributed to the rise of terrorist activity. Perhaps not accidentally—says Benjamin Barber—Arab extremists see America as “a nation of unbelievers who fulfill the work of the devil.”68 In another survey in June 2006, Pew Research Group found, as reported by BBC News, that “the United States is the world’s biggest peace threat.”69 The survey included the opinion of 17,000 people from 15 European and the Muslim countries.

In 2007, Financial Times titled that “Europeans regard US as a threat to peace.” The article noted that respondents estimate that the greatest threat to world peace is US policy: “A Harris Research survey for financial times in June shows that 32% of respondents in five European countries view the United States as a threat greater than any other state.”70 The five countries surveyed are the most representative of Western region, namely Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

A WIN/Gallup international survey conducted at the end of 2013 found that population in 65 countries consider that “the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.”71 While a quarter of the 66,000 people polled named Uncle Sam as the greatest enemy of peace, “Other menaces didn’t even come close: 8 percent named Pakistan, putting that country in second place, while 6 percent named China. A mere 4 percent found Iran threatening— which tied it with Israel.” The threat from the United States was mostly felt in Middle East and North Africa, areas most recently affected by US military interven­tions. It is noteworthy that WIN/Gallup never repeated the questionnaire in the coming years.

Unlike WIN/Gallup, Pew Research Center reiterated the above-mentioned 2006 survey. Thus, on August 1, 2017, the organization published the new results of a poll conducted on the population of 30 countries. This time too, most respondents indicated US as the country they consider most dangerous to world peace: “Concerns about US power and influence increased in countries around the world.” The study shows that if in 2013 US was seen as the main threat by 25% of respondents, in 2017 it was concluded that “an average of 38% now says that the power and influence of the United States is a major threat to their country.”72

Nor is the perception of the Germans too encouraging about the relationship with the United States. According to a report published on February 8, 2019 by Reuters, a study conducted by Atlantik-Bruecke and the Civey public survey institute reveals that “Nearly 85% of Germans see relations between the US and Germany as negative or very negative.”73 Germany’s main complaints include US withdrawal from the agreement with Iran, from the INF, America’s criticisms that Germany does not contribute enough to NATO funds, and the US claim that Germany should not deal with Russia (especially regarding Nord Stream 2), neither with Iran nor with China. Washington officials say without too much diplomatic reserves that they want Germany to put its business with the US first. But the Germans rightly find that those deals with the US would not in any way be to Germany’s advantage. And that is just out of the “strategic reasons” that the White House targets. In contrast to America’s directives, only 1.9% of the Germans believe that the Russian Federation would pose a global threat and only 2.2% fear China’s growing influence. Of note, 42.3% of the respondents consider China a better partner for Germany than the United States.

As you can see, the results are very clear and unambiguous. And that is why they lead to important conclusions. Pursuant to Benjamin Barber, former White House presidential advisor, “America is no longer able to decipher the message of binding interdependence that defines the world of the 21st century. They think they can impose democracy on vanquished enemies at the barrel of a gun.” Barber believes that, in reality, “today America no longer exports democracy to free market, but deals with liberation of markets and globalization of corporate capital, processes they call democracy.”74 The American political scientist believes the United States is currently acting “with plutocratic contempt” to demands of global equality and instead of it, “they began to assault the world.”75

Back to the renowned political scientist Samuel Huntington, in a famous study of his entitled The Lonely Superpower, he noted that as early as 1997, at a Harvard conference, scholars reported that “the elites of countries comprising at least two-thirds of the world’s people—Chinese, Russians, Indians, Arabs, Muslims, and Africans—see the United States as the single greatest external threat to their societies.” Huntington emphasized that America is not only a military threat to these populations, but also a threat to their integrity, autonomy, prosperity and freedom of action and manifestation. “They view the United States,” Huntington wrote, as “intrusive, inter­ventionist, exploitative, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical, and applying double standards, engaging in what they label ‘financial imperialism’ and ‘intellectual colonialism’.”76

In this context, a more in-depth analysis, to answer some key questions, would be very welcome. First, given the large popular opposition, can we still say that US intervention through bombing and regime change brings democracy? How can you establish the principle of “power of people” (demos-kratos) against the will of people themselves, who clearly and vehemently reject these interventions? Doesn’t this slogan of “international democracy” look like a façade behind which the interest for power is in fact hidden, in order to impose global hegemony of America?

A fact that few understand is that there is a huge difference between the way people perceive the meaning of democracy and the way planners of the global policies conceive the democratic principles. A concrete example is the statement from 1996 of US Defense Secretary, Madeleine Albright. Asked in a TV show if the attainment of US and British objectives in Iraq was worth by imposing an extremely tough embargo through UN, which led to death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children (more than they died in Hiroshima) she replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price… we think the price is worth it.”77

It may be surprising, but this response reflects the condescension by which political factors often consider war, suffering and hundreds of thousands of people death as simple costs in a calculation of power that “masses” cannot apprehend.

(To be continued)

Navighează dupa cuvinte-cheie: , ,
FLUX DE ȘTIRI
Toate știrile
Parteneri