We may think that there is nothing wrong if a superpower of the planet wants to lead the world. History shows the examples of Assyria, Egypt and Rome that effectively did it over the known world at their time and space. The same happened with Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. Albeit, the thing is that in this case the hegemonic power enunciates a sort of limitation in the first page of the forewords (sixth paragraph) when in a contradictory phrase states that “The question is never weather America should lead, but how we lead.”
Where is the contradiction? First of all, with the assertion that “the question is never whether America should lead” we understand that the US will lead no matter if the US Government is doing things right or wrong. And secondly, the thing about “how we lead” falls aimless because it does not limit the leadership of the White House that – according to the first assertion- will prevail no matter good or bad, virtuosity or evil, right or wrong.
The quoted four words (“but how we lead”) are pieces of candy offered to the rest of the world by which the US Government says they are going to try to do things in a manner that nations, countries and states will like them, but if they do not like them they will act anyway because the US is the leader and at the end of any argument, opinion, convention, declaration or requirement, will exercise his own choice.“About security and national defense”:
Every nation has the right to secure and defend its population and territory. All states have national interests that can advance in the community of nations by sharing common interests with others and negotiating those that are not.
When we read in the document (page 7) the assertion that the responsibility of the government to protect the American people does “not end at our borders” and that “we embrace our responsibilities for underwriting international security because it serves our interest,” we can appreciate that there are four ways countries can relate with the US Government:
as an ally because both share common interest and if the community of interests is overwhelming they may became partners;
as friendly governments due to the bilateral relationship in which by negotiations the smaller country renders concessions (extractive, commercial, industrial) to the US in exchange for loans or custom duties reductions, for example;
The other country has a policy of defense of natural resources, takes independent decisions in the different world forums and tries to forge alliances with other countries with similar problems, all of which places the country in the grey zone, meaning by this that the US will start a sustained campaign along with his allies to cause political and economic instability and topple the national government;
If the previous fails then the US will use direct military force or that of one his allies to stage an attack with the use of any technology they have in hand, with the only exclusion of nuclear power.
This is clearly exposed in the document (third paragraph of page 7) where the White House writes about the preeminence of NATO, the historic ties with Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada plus the cohesiveness of the policies of the Nordic countries and the contributions of the new members like Poland and the Baltic countries. On Asia, US Government calls upon its alliance with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, “as well as our close partner in New Zealand.” Also indicates the continuity of essential bilateral alliances.
All this is backed up by “A strong military” that “is the bedrock of our national security,” and based also on an uncontroverted truth: “Our military is postured globally” (last paragraph of page 7). The reader can corroborate this by checking the Maps of US Military Troops and Bases around the World and The Cost of Permanent War, done by Hugh de Andrade and Bob Wing. It shows that the US has more than 700 military bases in 63 countries, with 255065 troops occupying 30 million acres, plus four fleets of navy power and thousands of fighter and bomber planes.
In page 8 the document establishes what we interpret are the three principles that guide the use of military force outside the US:
If deterrence fails, US forces will be ready to project power globally;
The use of force is not the first choice but sometimes will be the necessary choice,
The US will use military force if necessary, when its enduring interests demand it.
We need no further comment about this.
“Combat the persistent threat of terrorism”:
After 9/11, US have staged wars against countries that “harbor terrorism.” Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and more recently Syria that is not accused with the same charges but does not fall in line to follow the pronouncements of the White House. There is also a state of war in Pakistan supported by US policies and its use of tactical weapons like drones.
Iraq and Syria are the only two secular states of the Arab world. Iraq was destroyed by a war based on official lies about the use Saddam would make of arms of mass destruction than did not exist. Syria is under attack of armed opposition that receives permanent logistic support from US and allies.
A year ago no one knew that an army of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) existed. Today we all know it exists and is fighting furiously against people of Iraq and Syria. They occupy territory of both nations, they are well armed and trained, and you do not know if they are Shiites or Sunny Muslims because they killed them indistinguishably, also Christians and journalist and whomever they can assassinate to provoke fear.
Let us ask ourselves whose policy do the actions of the ISIL serve. Could it be the religious policies of the Mowabits of Saudi Arabia and connected with them the US, their closest ally –in this case- for different purposes?
If it was not tragic it would be hilarious this assertion of the Foreword (page 1, seventh paragraph): “We are leading over 60 partners in a global campaign to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, including by working to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to those countries”.
Frankly, we do not see the action of ISIL diminishing, on the contrary, they control territory in Iraq and Syria and, so far, only the Kurds have had some tactical success in limited situations on two different battlefields, one in Syria and the other in Iraq. The army of ISIL destroys monuments of the Mesopotamia culture with bulldozers in Mosul (Iraq) and the TV networks of US and Europe exhibit the terrible disaster. With even more sense of fear we appreciate in the global media the participation of British and American muslims in the execution of prisoners. The journalists call them by their names and we can only suppose these names have been filtered to them by CIA or MI5. Recently, two Islamic Americans from Brooklyn (NY) wrote in the internet they were going to join ISIL and were captured by the authorities. This is the only known disruption of flow of foreign fighters that has surfaced so far.
What we mean is that there is no policy of disruption of foreign fighters; the true policy is to stimulate the phenomenon through the publishing of journal notes and internet news and if someone speaks out about his intention to leave the country to join the ISIL, he is taken under custody. Either way the government is getting rid of them.
The real policy of US national security is the existence of ISIL itself, the probable creation of one of those phantom security agencies and using it to act like a vacuum cleaner sucking muslim radicals out of the territory of the US towards the sites occupied by ISIL, where they combat against Syria, the Sunnis of northern Iraq and the Kurds, keeping a permanent political and social disturbance that at a certain moment will engender total chaos and then someone that is big and strong (NATO or US alone) will step in to end it all by a carpet bombing maneuver. **
Last but not least, how is it that such a radical Islamic movement like the ISIL has never attacked an Israeli target or even threaten to do so? Naturally, a good thing that it has not happened, nevertheless it is something to think about.
“Built capacity to prevent conflicts”:
It says in the third paragraph of page 10: “We will strengthen US and international capacity to prevent conflict among and within states. In the realm of inter-state conflict, Russia´s violation of Ukraine´s sovereignty and territorial integrity –as well as its belligerent stance toward other neighboring countries- endangers international norms…”
We all witnessed the military occupation of Crimea by the Russians. But, who started the escalation? Who started to surround the Russian territory by placing radars to detect missiles (coming from Iran to blast over Europe was the excuse) in the very vicinity of the Russian boundaries? Who organized and carried out a coup d´etat in Kiev to favor a political group sympathetic to NATO? Was not Miss Nouland with a team of the US State Department doing the alliances and whatever more had to be done to accomplish such thing? In view of all this, why should we be surprised if in a chess move the Russians that in the past had given away Crimea to Ukraine, decided to take it back?
“Deep Economic and Security Cooperation in the Americas”:
The White House says it “will continue to advance a Western Hemisphere that is prosperous, secure, democratic and plays a greater global role”. It also adds that these aims are in peril because of “lingering economic disparity, and inadequate education and health systems” (fourth paragraph of page 27). Two paragraphs later the White House states that is “championing a strong and effective inter-American human rights and rule of law system”. Then in the last paragraph of page 28, the big bully from the north drops like a menace this phrase: “Equally, we stand by the citizens of countries where the full exercise of democracy is at risk, such as Venezuela”.*
How can anyone state something like this about the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that has diminished drastically the economic disparity among the Venezuelans because millions of citizens that were for decades segregated from the normal development of the society (did not even had ID cards), now have access to free education, free health system that includes the medicines for the medical treatments, cultural events, subsidized food, housing and along with all this social human rights have full capacity to practice all the known civil rights. We have an open society and a multi party electoral system that is example of transparency. The Declaration of Humans Rights and of the Citizens of 1789 (French Revolution) has 17 articles; the San Francisco Chart of Human Rights of 1945, which is the stone foundation of the United Nations, has 30 articles. Our Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has 116 articles in the chapter committed to human rights.
When we speak about human rights and humanitarian causes, certainly the US is no good example for the world. In the last six months how many unarmed Afro-Americans have been shot to death by white police officers in Los Angeles, Florida, Wisconsin, Missouri and New York? How many of the police involved are under custody and subject to criminal judicial trial? The answer is not one of them.
In Venezuela, during the months of February, March, and April of 2014, groups of political opponents of the Revolutionary Government promoted and executed acts of violence against private and public property and also against the common people that could not go to work or return home after work because they found the streets blocked. Vehicles and pedestrians were physically impeded to go through the blockades. Stones, handcrafted explosive rockets and Molotov bombs were thrown at the National Police and to whomever dared to go through the demonstrators and their blockades. Snipers with hand guns and rifles shot policemen, national guard and people who tried to remove obstacles. The chaotic and violent actions of the opposition radicals deliver a toll of 43 dead persons: Seven officers of the National Police and National Guards (all downed by sniper fire), 39 common citizens killed by gunshots or contusions and lacerations and 5 members of the radical bands of the opposition, killed by police or National Guards who are held under custody and submitted to criminal charges.
The reason of the demonstrations was to make President Nicolas Maduro resign, yet the world media said they were only asking him to resign. There is a big difference between asking and making. What would happen to demonstrators if the same scheme of protests were applied in Washington, New York, Los Angeles and Boston to make President Obama resign?
“International Order”:
In this section of the document (page 23), the White House names three times the United Nations Organization. During the rest of the paper work (30 pages), everywhere it is said that the US will act globally with NATO, allies, and alone when needed.
The US devotes itself to the United Nations, says: “We will work vigorously both within the U.N. and other multilateral institutions, and with member states, to strengthen and modernize capacities –form peacekeeping to humanitarian relief- so they endure to provide protection, stability, and support for future generations” (third paragraph of page 23).
Albeit, here comes the exception. In the paragraph that follows, the White House states: “At the same time, we will exact an appropriate cost on transgressors. Targeted economic sanctions remain an effective tool for imposing costs on those irresponsible actors whose military transgression…” “We will pursue multilateral sanctions, including through the U.N., whenever possible, but will act alone, if necessary”.
This leaves quite clear that the US entitles himself to act apart from any multilateral agreement, based on its enormous capacity of military might. But who can answer for the US when in the use of the military power it utilizes it commits transgressions, something they call in the war briefings “collateral damages” than provoke dozens or hundreds or much more human casualties?
The atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, killed instantly 220000 human beings, the Vietnam War occurred between 1958 and 1975 left a toll of more than one million dead persons. Says the British Opinion Institute that the “Preventive war against terrorism” that took place in different sites of the world (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Palestine) provoked more than one million deaths. During the second half of the Twenty Century the School of the Americas prepared more than 60000 Latin American military to defend the dictatorships promoted by the US with the use of barbaric acts of torture and counter terrorism and tens of thousands of people died because of it. Is this the example to follow or the actions to fear?
The US does all this and is not accountable. No one can take this hegemonic State to the Criminal Court of Justice because is not a signatory of the International Convention that created it, the Rome Treaty of 1998.
“Combat the persistent threat of terrorism”:
How does the US combat terrorism? By the reinforcement of the law, by a judicial criminal trial that respects due process for the detainee with charges of terrorism? No, what the US Government does is that it either kills the supposed perpetrator or keeps him in jail without trial for indefinite time in Guantanamo. Here is what the White House says about the death of Osama Bin Laden, for example: “…the extraordinary sacrifices of our U.S. military, civilians throughout the interagency, and our international partners. They delivered justice to Osama Bin Laden…” (End of page 9 and beginning of page 10). As far as we know, Osama Bin Laden was shot to death and his body disappeared in the ocean without receiving a death sentence from a judge in a fair trial. The US military took action by themselves, with no direct combat assistance from international partners. The whole act is documented in video and was shown by the world media. But of course, this is something the US can do because it is the big guy, the global hegemonic guardian.
Who is to blame for the current internal war in Syria? Who gave weapons and training to the “moderate Syrian opposition”? Who states as a unique truth that this is the way to find “a counterweight to the terrorism and the brutality of the Assad regime”? (Second paragraph of page 10). How does the White House arrive to this conclusion? How many civilian casualties are the result of this disastrous behavior of the Government of the country that wants to lead the world with its example? The hundreds of thousands of victims of this unfair and condemnable war are just numbers treated with disdain by US authorities.
This manner to operate in the world to have the US Government do its will is not new. It is happening since the nineteen century in the appropriation of a vast territory that belonged to Mexico, followed by Cuba, Puerto Rico. The invasions of many Latin-American countries. The occupation of Panama after a cruel aerial bombing apparently only to take mister Noriega prisoner; how many death and injured were left behind.
I have many American friends that are good parents, citizens, friends that do not agree at all with this conduct and I am very sure that most of the inhabitants of this marvelous country share the same feelings. I cannot associate the leadership in power in the US that speaks out about killing people as if they were talking about cockroaches, with my American friends.
Caracas, march, 2015.
*On March, 9th, 2015, the President of the U.S. issued an executive order declaring Venezuela a national security threat, sanctioning seven individuals and expressing concern about the Venezuela government´s treatment of political opponents. The solemn seriousness of the assertion by which Venezuela is a threat to national security of the US -that of course is simply unbelievable- is not match with the dwarf sanctions imposed immediately after, although, by no means it means we may think that the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution is not in danger. What Venezuela received is a true scolding message that is indeed a true menace, because despite the fact that the White House is overlooking the patriotic forces that will unify the population around the government in defense of the motherland, it also signifies that the White House no longer believes in a change of model gained in popular elections, rather they prefer to start an escalation with measures of force to topple the Revolutionary Government and if it results unsuccessful, will take military actions directly or through allies or both.
**On March, 11th, 2015, Secretary of the State Department, John Kerry, visited Congress to ask for authorization to declare war to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) a formality omitted in most of the wars carried out by the US Government. This probably signifies that time and circumstances matured and the military power of the “leader” can act to erase ISIL from the face of Earth. Marshall Dillon will draw his gun and bomb the evil combatants of ISIL to hell receiving the applause of a World that for a year learned from the global media about the horrible actions against humanity committed by this wicked people. The cycle will close.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate