|
Participant: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-28 13:33:39
I fail to see how this document is really anything new- since the end of World War 2 this has been normalcy for American foreign policy...Global control via complete military and corporate supremacy- control of the worlds doctrinal systems, natural resources and having the guns big enough to deter anyone who wants to step into the ring. It may not always work, but...
Anatol Lieven, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace describes the actions of the Bush administration as "the classic-modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism, inspired by the fear of enemies about to destroy us." Hence, the the situation in Iraq...but this is not the first time that the world has seen such actions, and not the first time that the US Administration has adopted them.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -Herman Goering (Hitler's second in command) at the Nuremberg Trials
As I've stated many times before and in my previous post, this is really nothing new. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said of 9/11 and the efforts in Iraq: "I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947 in that the events...started shifting the tectonic plates in international politics. And it's important to try to seize on that and position American interests and institutions before they harden again."
And yes I did notice that the familiar names at the bottom- but hopefully you noticed that this is not the first time that all of them have been involved at high levels in the US Administration; Dick Cheney and his work with the Iraqi oil fields; Donald Rumsfeld and his work as an envoy to Iraq in 1983, so on and so forth...
"This document's recommendations are now becoming official policy. The drive to ensure that there will be no competing superpower is a direct result of it. The drive into Iraq. The "whatever it takes" imperative to ensure alliances is a result."
Could you provide some proof of this please? The "recommendations" that this document brings forward are once again, nothing new, and have been (in one form or another) goals for some time- the drive into Iraq has been happening for the same reason all along...a way to have control in the Arab region as well as stability and control of oil supplies.
France was expelled from control after the second World War under the pretext that they were an 'enemy state', having once been occupied by Germany. From there, America took over, England as their junior partner...In 1945 the State Department called the second largest oil fields in the world (in Iraq) "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history". Like I said before...
"The ramifications of these quite radical changes in US policy are only just being understood in the world...are we seeing a deliberate diminishment of the importance of the UN in service of "the New American Century"?"
Once again, I don't see how there have been any radical changes in US foreign policy, and I don't see how the world is just understanding them...could you please provide some proof for these claims?
Going outside of the UN is nothing new either- it has happened in the past and it was done perfectly well when George W. Bush started bombing Afghanistan, committing him, Tony Blair, Jean Chretien and others as war criminals under international law.
And you'll notice that the US Administration attempted to gain immunity from the International Criminal Court by removing their signature from the treaty...But does it really matter? To them and a lot of the world, it would seem not. When the UN and all other international bodies don't serve the interests of the US, they are pushed aside. For example, on December 13, 2001 the US Administration announced that they were pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty...Vladimir Putin of Russia really did nothing about this- and why?
In an article for the Washington Post, Robert Kagan describes US foreign policy and thier unilateral actions: "It's the unilateralist iron fist inside the multilateralist velvet glove...Maybe it won't be quite the principled multilateralism Europeans and Kofi Annan prefer. In an age of American hegemony, it will be multilateralism, American style." I believe the proper slogan would read "DO WHAT WE SAY, NOT DO WHAT WE DO."
"but rather than using it as a jumping off point for rants about the US I'd prefer to use it as a jumping off point for examining our own natonal options in the realm of foreign policy and perhaps trade."
How then do you suppose we should consider our "national options", "foreign policy" and "trade"? Have we not already made choices in those matters...we seem to follow the US when they go somewhere- does that not make our decisions pre-decided? I seriously hope not...
"This is an emerging post Cold War new world order the like of which few imagined."
You're right when you say that...there were only a few people, considering the masses, that wanted world order to head in this direction. But I'm afraid US hegemony has been this flavour for some time now...
Répondre à ce message
|
