|
|
hen Bush
goes, everyone
will be hoping
for a change -
or fearing the
worst. McCain or
Obama? What will
that change for
Iraq,
Afghanistan,
Palestine,
Africa, Caucasia,
Cuba and
Venezuela ? And
for US
relationships
with the big
powers: Europe,
Japan, Russia,
China?
This text is
extracted from
our book « The 7
sins of Hugo
Chávez »
(Chapter 11 :
[The United
States] Black
gold and the
wars of
tomorrow),
shortly to be
published. The
preceding pages
explained the
reason for the
rise and then
decline of the
United States.
Bush's Failure
12/10/08 "ICH'
-- - What
would be the
balance sheet of
this global war
on terror led by
the Bush
administration
as from 11
September ?
Negative.
Virtually
everywhere.
In Afghanistan
and Iraq, the
United States
has launched two
wars which they
are unable to
win and which
they will never
win. Bush wanted
to launch a
third war
against Iran
but, the US
being seriously
weakened, he has
had to renounce
it. The aim of
this war was to
have been to
ensure
Washington's
control over
oil. In five
years, it has
risen from 25
dollars to over
100 dollars [per
barrel], with
very negative
consequences for
the US and world
economy.
In South
America, the
United States
has lost,
entirely or
partially,
control over
almost all their
colonies :
Venezuela,
Bolivia,
Ecuador,
Uruguay,
Paraguay,
Argentina and
Brazil. All that
remains to them,
at the time of
writing, are
Peru, Chile and
Colombia.
In Africa, too,
resistance has
made some
advances. Kabila
of the Congo
refused to go on
his knees. And
when Washington
tried to find
somewhere to set
up their new
military
command, AFRICOM,
all countries
politely
refused.
Also in South
Asia, there has
been an increase
in resistance
over the whole
region which has
alarmed US
strategists, who
propose
reinforcing the
US's 'projection
capacity' in
South Asia. In
their jargon,
that means
organizing
military
landings and
bombardments,
and supporting «
coups d'etat ».
But the group
emphasize that,
given the
unpopularity of
the United
States in this
region it will
be impossible to
find a country
that will accept
the headquarters
of such a US
force.
Bush's
policy has
aroused
resistance even
among their
European allies.
Thus, at the
NATO summit in
Bucharest in
April, George
Bush demanded
further
expansion of the
organization,
this time to
integrate
Ukraine and
George - which
was like
pointing a
couple of
cannons at
Russia. But
there were firm
and open
refusals from
Germany, France,
Spain, Italy,
Belgium, the
Netherlands and
Luxemburg, none
of them wishing
to make troubles
with Moscow
which provides
them with gas.
Steve Erlanger
and Steven Lee
Myers, two
analysts close
to the Pentagon,
saw in this « a
manifest failure
of US policy in
an alliance
normally
dominated by
Washington ».
Indeed Russia's
attitude is
hardening.
Moscow rejects
the installation
on the European
continent of
arms that the
United States
call an
anti-missile
shield :
« If part of the
US nuclear
potential is in
Europe (...) we
have to have
targets in
Europe .»
Moreover, in May
2008, Russia
tested a new,
multi-head
intercontinental
missile « in
response to
unilateral and
groundless acts
by our partners
» declared
Putin.
Washington
however stated
that the
anti-missile
shield was not
directed against
Russia, only
against states
like Iran. But
Putin replied :
« There is no
Iranian missile
that has a
sufficient
range. It is
therefore
evident that
this news
concerns us
Russians too . »
Like Russia,
China has also
refused to back
down when
confronted by
numerous
campaigns and
pressures
exercised by
Washington.
The US Elite Is
Divided
Ten years
ago, Zbigniew
Brzezinski,
former national
security advisor
to President
Carter and the
leading
strategist in
the United
States,
published his
book « The Great
Chessboard ».
More or less «
How to remain
the superpower
dominating the
world » . He
explained, with
the brutal
frankness of
someone no
longer in
official
position, that
Washington must
absolutely
weaken its
rivals : Russia
and China, but
also Europe and
Japan, and
prevent them
from allying
with each other.
Divide and rule.
Today, what is
the balance
sheet from
George Bush
using
Brzezinski'
criteria ? Has
he managed to
weaken the great
power rivals ?
We would say :
fairly well as
concerns Japan,
fairly well (for
the moment) as
concerns Europe,
but badly as
concerns Russia
and very badly
as concerns
China.
Globally, Bush
has provoked so
much resistance
that United
States'
domination has
been weakened.
The business
interests that
had brought him
to power -
armaments, oil,
automobiles,
defence,
pharmaceutical
companies - have
seen that Bush's
wars have not
brought great
profits, or new
areas for
exploitation. In
fact, they have
cost more than
they have
gained. And the
Bush
administration
has been shown
up as being a
small,
restricted
circle whose
members thought
a lot about
filling their
own pockets but
who were incable
of tactical
finesse and
genuine
long-term
vision.
Once the failure
had become
obvious, the
divisions among
the US elite,
and even in the
Bush
administration,
became
exacerbated. As
from 2006 the
neocons had to
cede territory.
They had to
accept replacing
the War
Minister, Donald
Rumsfeld, by
Robert Gates, a
Trilateral man
belonging to the
Brzezinski
tendency. The
new minister had
to some extent
admitted the
weakness of US
militarism in a
speech he gave
to the cadets at
the West Point
Military Academy
: « Don't fight
unless you have
to. Never fight
alone. And don't
fight for long.
» Then the
bi-partisan
Baker-Hamilton
Commission
condemned the
effort of Bush
to reshape the
'Great Middle
East' as being
unrealistic.
They advocated,
on the contrary,
a more tactical
approach towards
Syria and Iran.
Even within the
secret services
and the army
there are a
number of
revolts. In
December 2007,
when Bush wanted
to prepare an
attack against
Iran under the
classic pretext
of it having
weapons of mass
destruction,
sixteen US
intelligence
services
surprised
everyone by
publishing a
report stating
that Iran had
suspended its
military nuclear
programme since
at least 2003.
« The decline
of the United
States is
inevitable »
(Zbigniew
Brzezinski)
Brzezinski, in
his book,
proposed an
agressive and
machiavellian
strategy to save
the US Empire.
But even he, did
he really
believe it would
work ? Strange
as it may seem,
it appears not.
« In the long
term, global
politics are
destined to
become less and
less favourable
to the
concentration of
hegemonic power
in the hands of
only one state.
America is thus
not only the
first global
super power, it
is very probably
the last one. »
(CH - p. 267)
The reason for
this is the
evolution of the
economy : «
Economic power
also risks
becoming
dispersed. In
the coming
years, no
country will be
likely to attain
some 30 per cent
of the world
GNP, a figure
that the United
States has
maintained
during most of
the 20th century
- not to mention
the high point
of 50 per cent
that they
reached in 1945.
According to
certain
estimates,
America could
still hold 20
per cent of the
world GNP at the
end of this
decade, which
would then fall
to 10 - 15 per
cent from now to
the year 2020.
The figures for
other powers -
Europe, China,
Japan - are
expected to
increase to
reach the
approximate
level of the
United States
... Once the
decline of the
American
leadership has
set in, the
supremacy that
the country now
enjoys cannot be
taken over by
any single
state. » (CH -
p. 267-8)
« Once the
decline of the
American
leadership has
set in ».
Brzezinski is
therefore not
talking about a
possibility, but
a certitude. He
wrote that in
1997. Today it
has become clear
that the decline
is well on its
way. The world
is becoming
multipolar.
But perhaps
Brzezinski is an
isolated
pessimist ?
Perhaps the
neocons who
inspired Bush
are more
'optimist', if
one can use that
word ? In fact,
they are not
much more
optimistic. In
the founding
text of the
administration's
whole policy,
the Project for
a New American
Century (PNAC),
drawn up in 1992
by Paul
Wolfowitz and
his friends, the
whole ideology
of a new
militarist
crusade is
evident, but
there is also a
remark worthy of
note : « At the
moment, the
United States
has no world
rival. The
overall strategy
of America must
aim at
preserving and
extending this
advantageous
position as long
as possible
(...) Preserving
this desirable
strategic
situation in
which the United
States finds
itself at the
present time
requires
predominant
military
capacities at
the world level.
» (CH)
« As long as
possible » :
here, too, there
is no belief
that the United
States can
remain the
masters of the
world for ever.
It is a real
paradox. The
whole world
fears the United
States. But the
rulers of the
country
themselves know
that they are at
the controls of
the Titanic. And
to save the
Empire as long
as possible,
they are divided
between two
options.
Two Options for
Saving the
Empire
What will be the
foreign policy
of the United
States in the
years to come ?
The choice of
president will
certainly give
some idea. But
it is not
decisive. We
should remember
that, during the
presidential
campaign of
2000, George
Bush had
promised a much
milder foreign
policy and less
interventionist
than its
precedessor !
And the other
candidate, Al
Gore, had
proposed a
bigger military
budget than that
of Bush. We
believe that the
general
orientations of
foreign policy
are not decided
by presidents
but by the
multinationals,
in function of
their
requirements of
the moment and
their evaluation
of world power
relationships.
And, in fact,
after the
balance sheet of
the Bush years
that we have
just described,
the US elite
seems quite
divided about
the line to
follow. How to
resolve this
delicate
situation ?
The first
possible option
is the military
one. Bush's
neocons embodied
this the last
few years with
the Wolfowitz
strategy, one of
aggression and
intimidation.
Multiply the
wars, inflate to
the maximum the
orders to the
military-industrial
complex to
promote growth
and the
domination of
the US
multinationals,
and also to
intimidate
allies and
rivals.
The other
option, which is
defended by
Brzezinski, is
what he likes to
call 'soft
power'. Others
call it
'intelligent
imperialism'. In
fact it aims at
the same
objectives, but
through forms of
violence that
are less direct,
less visible. It
would count less
on very
expensive US
military
interventions
and more on
secret services,
destabilization
manoeuvres and
proxy wars, as
well as
corruption.
Five NATO
Generals Prepare
a World
Government ...
The
first option
consists of
militarizing
political life
still further
and increasing
the number of
wars. Bush
squared, in
fact.
In January 2008,
five former NATO
generals
presented a
preparatory
document for the
NATO summit
meeting at
Bucharest. Their
proposals
reflect a
terrifying
tendency. And
what gives
weight to their
document is
that, up until
recently, all of
them held very
high positions.
General John
Shalikashvili
was US Chief of
Staff and
Commander in
Chief of NATO in
Europe, General
Klaus Naumann
ran the German
army and was
president of the
military
committe of NATO
in Europe,
General Henk van
den Breemen was
chief of the
Dutch Chief of
Staff and
Admiral Jacques
Lanxade held the
same post in
France, while
Lord Inge ran
the General
Staff and was
also Chief of
the Defence
Staff of Great
Britain. This is
just the big
shots - and very
aggressive they
are too, as we
shall see.
Page 6 : « [The
authors] propose
ways how to
overcome
possible rivalry
with the EU and
also how to
enable NATO to
have access to
non-military
instruments. »
Two observations
:
in fact, this
rivalry is not
only possible,
it is completely
real. In what
way do they want
to overcome it?;
·
what does NATO
mean by having «
access to
non-military
instruments » ?
Is it a question
of having more
control over
civil society in
western
countries ?
Page 7 : « In
order to start
off the process,
they propose
establishing a
directorate
bringing
together the
United States,
the European
Union and NATO.
Its mission
would be to
coordinate all
operations in
the Atlantic
sphere. » For
what objectives
?
The Five explain
this on page 42
: « What the
Western allies
expect is the
pro-active
defence of their
societies and
their way of
life maintained
over the long
term. »
« Defending our
way of life »
has already been
used as an
argument by Bush
senior to launch
the first war
against Iraq. In
fact, « way of
life » is a
hypocritical
term that means
the domination
of the
multinationals
over economic
life : it is a
domination that
keeps half of
humanity in
poverty. The aim
of the Five is
in fact to use
military means
to maintain the
gap between the
rich and the
poor. Anyone who
doubts this
should read, on
page 92 : « The
objectives of
our strategy are
to preserve the
peace, our
values, economic
liberalism and
stability. »
It is,
therefore, to
preserve the
stability of the
multinationals.
Against what
enemies ? The
authors give
some examples of
what is not to
be tolerated in
the Third World.
Page 52 : « We
have less
important
examples of
non-desirable
aid, from
Venezuela to the
Cuban regime. »
The world
gendarme takes
upon itself the
right to
intervene
everywhere
against
countries that
do things that
the
multinationals
don't like.
But among the
undesirables,
who is the main
enemy ? The
answer is on
page 44 :
« China is in a
situation to
wreak great harm
on the US and
the world
economies, based
on its enormous
reserves in
dollars. » And,
on page 52 : «
China is in a
position to use
finance to
impose itself on
Africa and
acquire the
capacity to
utilize it on a
much greater
scale - if it so
decides. »
So here we have,
well-defined,
the good and the
bad. Liberalism
needs NATO to
impose itself on
the whole world.
And to carry out
this economic
war, what means
does NATO
require ?
International
Law and the
United Nations
Thrown Overboard
In
fact, the five
generals feel
frustrated. On
page 76 : « One
of the chief
problems in the
current
strategic
conception of
the Atlantic
alliance is that
its actions
remain reactive
rather than
preventive, and
are limited to
military means.
On page 91 : «
An ambitious
strategy must
include the
well-integrated
use of all
accessible
means,
political,
economic,
military,
cultural,
social, moral,
spiritual and
psychological. »
So there we are
! The Gang of
Five wants to
move beyond its
military tasks
and exercise
control over the
functioning of
civil society.
But will the law
be respected at
least by this
new world
government ? It
is very
doubtful. On
pages 94-95 : «
Another
principle to be
respected is
legality. All
action must be
legitimate,
authorized and
respect
international
law. That can be
a considerable
handicap when
the adversary
has no respect
at all for any
law whatsoever,
but to act
differently
would mean, in
the end,
applying the law
of the jungle
and undermine
our own
credibility.
Nevertheless
this principle
does not prevent
adapting
existing
international
law in an
international
context that is
constant
evolution. »
In this quote,
the first
sentences serve
as window
dressing and the
real content
comes at the
end. « Adapting
» the law means,
in effect,
violating it,
denying the
principles
proclaimed up
until now. After
Abu Ghraib,
Guantánamo,
torture, the
assassination of
heads of states,
the
extraordinary
rendition
flights and
secret prisons
of the CIA : are
they proposing
to combat these
violations of
the law ? No,
they propose to
legalize them,
'adapting' the
law.
Already two wars
against Iraq and
the one against
Yugoslavia have
violated
international
law, the UN
Charter and even
NATO's own
Charter. But it
is precisely
international
legality that
the Five want to
get rid of.
Pages 104-105 :
« The approval
of the United
Nations may not
be necessary
according to
Article 51 of
the UN Charter
(legitimate
defence) and it
is perhaps
possible to
renounce it on
the basis of the
Convention on
Genocide. »
«Long Live
Preventive War!»
Even If It Is
Nuclear
Page
96 makes for
reading that is
just as
disturbing : «
What we need is
a form of
dissuasion
through
pro-active
refusal, in
which the
preemption is a
form of imminent
reaction and
prevention an
attempt to take
back the
initiative and
put an end to
the conflict. »
« Pro-active
defence » in
military jargon,
means preventive
war. The term is
constantly
repeated in the
document of the
Five. George W.
Bush had already
invoked a
'preventive war'
against
terrorism. As
did Hitler in
his time.
Aggressors often
take refuge in
the pretext of
preventing
danger. In
actual fact,
international
law explicitly
forbids wars
claiming to be
preventive.
But our fears
don't end there.
On page 94 : «
At first sight,
the nuclear
weapon might
seem
disproportionate,
but if one takes
into account the
damage that it
prevents, it may
be reasonable. »
Here the
immorality of
these five
Gangits bursts
out into the
open. Nuclear
war is an
atrocity and
humanity has
constantly
demanded the
dismantling of
weapons of mass
destruction.
Here it is
claimed that
they are
justified. The
hypocrisy is
flagrant : « to
prevent damage
». This is
completely vague
and, without
doubt, racist.
The lives of
adversary
peoples are not
worth anything.
The truth is
that these
criminal
generals,
observing that
classic
bombardments are
not enough to
break
resistance, and
that wars on
land are
expensive and
dangerous for
the invaders,
propose the
nuclear weapon
as a solution to
the problem of
the world
hegemony of the
multinationals.
Preparing
Peoples' Minds
As can be seen,
the goods that
the Gang of Five
wish to sell us
are completely
rotten and
poisonous. This
is the reason
why they count
on manipulating
public opinion
through
long-term
propaganda
campaigns. On
page 104 : «
These measures
must be
accompanied by
pro-active and
coordinated
efforts of
communication
through the
media (,,,)
Furthermore,
such a media
campaign can
prepare peoples'
minds for an
armed
intervention. »
« Prepare
peoples' minds »
! Of course,
this is nothing
new. Drawing up
the balance
sheet of the war
against
Yugoslavia,
which was the
most successful
example of
organized
disinformation,
a NATO general
admitted, after
the war ended,
that false
information had
been
systematically
issued while
embarrassing
information was
eliminated or
marginalized in
order to «
anaesthetize
opinions ». He
thus acted upon
NATO's
philosophy that
« Opinion can be
worked upon,
like other
things. » In
each war,
Western generals
commission spin
doctors to sell
their war and
manipulate
public opinion.
But this time,
this is taken
much further :
there is to be a
long-term
campaign to
condition
opinion.
Page 129 : «
Therefore NATO
must develop an
information
strategy that
serves three
objectives
simultaneously.
It must persuade
the world that
NATO is a force
for good. It
must move before
its adversaries
start to
disseminate
their
information :
that is, NATO
must impose its
domination in
public
relations. It
must win the
hearts and minds
of the
inhabitants of
the NATO
countries
(convince them
that the
Atlantic
alliance's
position is a
correct one),
but also the
hearts and minds
of the
populations
where the armed
intervention is
taking place. »
« Impose its
domination in
public relations
.» Information
is seen as a war
that is won by
eliminating the
forces of the
adversary. This
is no idle
accusation. The
US army bombed
and imprisoned
Al Jazeera
journalists,
NATO bombed
Belgrade
television
station (17
killed), the
Pentagon has
prepared plans
to eliminate
embarrassing
information on
the Internet,
whose democratic
character is
upsetting it
considerably.
A Plan for World
Dictatorship
At the
beginning of
their document,
the five
generals
announced « ways
how to overcome
possible rivalry
with the EU »
How are they
going to do that
?
In effect, they
use the
framework of
NATO to organize
the submission
of the EU to
Washington's
will:
Page 137 : « We
consider that
multinational
forces are the
key for a rapid
and inexpensive
modernization of
NATO's force,
but we stress
that this is not
possible unless
member states
accept without
reserve that
these forces
will be at the
disposal of NATO
for all
operations
authorized by
the NATO
Council. »
Translation :
the European
armies will be
obliged to obey
NATO decisions
(currently
unanimity is
required).
The Five's plan
would give three
advantages to
the United
States : it
would integrate
European forces
into their own
wars ; it would
share the costs
among the allies
; and it would
also share the
unpopularity.
The
antidemocratic
character of the
Five is shown
clearly on page
139 : « We are
not formulating
proposals for
the reform of
the EU in such
detail as we
have for NATO
for two reasons
: first, a new
'smooth' treaty,
that has just
replaced the
'constitution'
that had been
condemned, has
now been adopted
so as to avoid
consulting the
populations. »
Their plan will
make it
impossible to
carry out any
opposition. Page
144 : « In order
to avoid all
sources of
inconvenience,
it could be
decided that
first of all an
issue will be
treated inside
NATO and then
the NATO members
who are also
members of the
EU will
undertake not to
depart from the
vote taken at
NATO when the
issue is brought
up in the
European bodies.
» Thus, once
NATO has
decided, no
European country
will have the
right to oppose
its decision.
In conclusion,
this plan of the
Gang of Five,
prepared by
people who have
been at the top
of world
military power,
exposes a
significant
tendency among
the elite. Their
plan for a super
world government
by the three
blocs
(effectively
dominated by the
United States)
would relegate
all vestiges of
international
law to the
dustbin,
legitimize
preventive war
and nuclear
weapons
andorganize
systematic
manipulation of
public opinion.
The plan is
nothing if not
fascist.
This is one of
the two options
that the elite
in the United
States are
currently
considering for
resolving their
problems. The
other is
embodied by
Zbigniew
Brzezinski, whom
we spoke about
earlier.
«Intelligent
Imperialism»?
The US
military
strategists
distinguish
three types of
war that they
could launch :
high intensity
wars between big
powers such as
the two world
wars ; medium
intensity wars
involving also
the US military
directly, but
against much
weaker powers,
as in Iraq and
Yugoslavia ;
low-intensity
wars, in which
there is not a
direct US
military
involvement but
which are
organized to
defeat others.
They provoke
conflicts
between
neighbouring
countries, or
through
paramilitary and
terrrorist
movements.
The term 'low
intensity' is
misleading, as
it could give
the impression
that there are
fewer damages.
In fact there
are fewer only
for the United
States. Thus the
so-called « low
intensity » war
that Washington
launched against
the Congo
(through the
armies of
neighbouring
Rwanda and
Uganda, and
various
militias)
resulted in five
million deaths
and it has
paralyzed the
development of
the Congo.
Brzezinski's
strategy is
different from
that of Bush in
that it favours
low-intensity
wars. In no way,
therefore, is it
more moral, but
it claims to
being more
intelligent.
But Brzezinski
also proposes
other forms of
intervention. We
often think of
military
intervention by
the United
States as the
most visible
form of
aggression. But
in fact they
dispose of a
wide range of
forms of
aggression.. To
establish a
complete
typology, it
would look like
this, in order
of ascending
intensity:
corruption of
local leaders ;
·
blackmail of
local leaders ;
·
demonization
media campaigns
;
·
various
destabilization
actions ;
·
embargos and
commercial
blockades ;
·
coups d'état ;
·
provoking
separatist
movements ;
·
war by proxy ;
·
bombardments ;
·
territorial
occupation.
As can be seen
there is a wide
variety of
methods which,
evidently, can
be combined. But
they are all
aggressions. Of
course all US
governments have
had recourse to
all these
methods, and not
only certain
ones. But the
dosage and
financing vary.
After the crimes
committed by
Bush, it is
tempting to
think that there
will be a change
of method.
However, if
Washington
decides to
changes its
tactics they
will not be more
pacific but only
less visible.
Brzezinski, it
should be
remembered, was
the man who
financed bin
Laden in
Afghanistan to
tie the Soviet
Union down in a
long and costly
war and to break
its alliance
with the Muslim
world.
Brzezinski is
very proud of
his success and
never loses an
opportunity to
refer to it.
If the United
States decide to
apply the
Brzezinski
strategy there
will certainly
be fewer direct
wars. And they
will be carried
out as often as
possible in
conjunction with
allies. This
will help to
take care of
their media
image and the
manipulation of
the public. And
above all the
CIA will be more
active : efforts
will be made to
replace wars
carried out
directly by the
United States by
indirect wars,
making
neighbouring
countries fight
each other,
supporting 'the
good war' and
using all kinds
of appropriate
pretexts. This
was the method
used
successfully by
Clinton against
Yugoslavia.
The Brzezinski
method has two
advantages for
the United
States. They
would regain a
more presentable
image and
re-establish
their moral
authority. And
by paying less
money to the
military-industrial
complex the US
economy would
reinforce its
competitive
position
vis-ŕ-vis
Europe, China,
India, etc.
In order to
economize on
wars the
Brzezinski
strategy would
make more use of
blackmail as
well as of
clandestine
activities.
Blackmail,
especially, can
be channelled
through world
economic
organizations
like the World
Bank, the
International
Monetary Fund
and the World
Trade
Organization.
These are
multilateral
institutions but
dominated by the
United States,
who can dictate
their wishes for
the Third World
in an apparently
more objective
manner. But this
will not be easy
because the
World Bank and
the IMF have
created such
antagonism among
the countries
they have dealt
with that the
latter are
looking for
alternatives.
The idea of a
Bank of the
South, launched
by Chávez is
making progress
...
More use would
also be made of
clandestine
activities - in
other words, the
CIA. This makes
it possible to
get rid of
obstreperous
governments at a
lower cost.
That is why
those who
support
Brzezinski's
strategy call
themselves
partisans of
'soft power' or
'intelligent
imperialism'.
But the danger
with this soft
power is that
the Left will be
so glad that
Bush has gone
that they will
reduce their
vigilance
because - for a
certain time -
there will be
fewer direct
wars. Thus the
international
anti-war
movement, which
is going through
an evident
crisis, will
react even less
strongly when
confronted by
the more
discreet
strategies of
the Empire.
At any rate, the
Empire will not
become more
peaceful. Sooner
or later it will
launch more
Bush-type wars.
This is because
the US elite in
fact practise
the two options
alternately.
Presidents Come
and Go, the
Multinationals
Remain
These two
options,
militarist or
'intelligent'
are not new. And
it is not a
question of the
opposition
between
republicans and
democrats. These
two parties do
not represent
'war' or 'peace'
but only
different
electorates,
different
tactics, and are
always at the
service of the
multinationals.
Hence it is not
a republican but
a democrat,
Harry Truman,
who launched the
war in 1950
against Korea
and China. It
was not a
republican, but
a democrat, John
Kennedy, who
started the war
against Vietnam
in 1961.
And it is not a
popular vote
either, against
the bourgeois
vote. The US
multinationals
always finance
both candidates,
putting their
eggs in both
baskets. But
their
preferences can
be judged by the
amounts they
contribute. At
the beginning of
the 1990s the
multinationals
invested in both
candidates, but
gave 59 pour
cent more to
Clinton and the
democrats.
Instead, from
1996 onwards
they gave
greater support
to the
republicans by
67 per cent. In
the presidential
elections of
2000 it was Bush
who was
massively
financed. And he
was declared
elected in spite
of the fact that
the ballots had
given his rival
Gore the
victory. On the
other hand, in
the presidential
elections of
2008 the
multinationals
have changed
sides again and
finance Obama
more than his
rival McCain.
However, the
same president
can change his
own policy.
After the fall
of the Soviet
Union and the
end of the Cold
War, Bill
Clinton reduced
the military
budget and the
orders to the
military-industrial
complex - for a
while. By so
doing, he had
hoped to
relaunch the US
economic machine
in general. But,
although the
decision was
almost
unnoticed, at
the end of his
mandate the same
Clinton made a
U-turn : « The
military budget
of the United
States must be
increased by 70
per cent. » This
just confirms
what was said
previously : the
great political
decisions do not
depend on the
character of one
president or
another, but on
strategies
decided higher
up. Presidents
come and go, the
multinationals
remain.
US Policy
Alternates its
Methods
So we shall talk
about
alternative US
policies. After
each important
setback, there
is a - temporary
- return to
'soft power'.
After the defeat
of Vietnam and
the moral
condemnation of
the
dictatorships
installed by
Washington in
Latin America,
the US
multinationals
brought the nice
pastor Jimmy
Carter to power,
with his
wonderful
speeches on
human rights.
After the Cold
War and the
first war
against Iraq,
President
Clinton tried to
involve the
Europeans in his
wars and gave
special
attention to
media
presentation. In
fact, the US
bourgeoisie was
in fact always
hesitating
between the two
options to solve
its problems.
Or, rather, it
alternated
between them : a
bit more stick,
a bit more
carrot. But its
choices became
increasingly
difficult.
Neither method
really solved
the problems.
Now, after the
disastrous
results of the
Bush regime, the
US bourgeoisie
is hesitating
between the two
options. Either
the headlong
plunge into more
wars or a
tactical
withdrawal,
moving back in
order to get a
better run-up.
The question is
not what
president they
are going to
choose, but
rather what
strategy.
At all events,
it is not sure
that the
Brzezinski
strategy is,
when all's said
and done, less
brutal than that
of Bush. It is
true that in
2008 he publicly
criticized the
president,
saying that he
was stupid to
want to attack
Iran, because he
could not win
and that a war
would harm the
situation of
Israel and
affect the price
of oil, hence
the US economy.
Certain analysts
think that
Brzezinski wants
to domesticate
Iran because he
hopes to turn
the country
around and make
it participate
one day in the
encirclement of
Russia. This is
the power that
remains his bęte
noire, the
obsession of the
author of The
Great
Chessboard. Some
think that
Brzezinski wants
to completely
encircle and
weaken Russia,
if not to wage
war on it, and
we should not
forget China,
which has
obviously become
a major target
now. If this
should happen,
soft power will
be transformed
into Apocalypse
Now.
Their Solutions
Will Only
Exacerbate the
Problems
That the
US bourgeoisie
is divided about
which line to
follow stems
from the fact
that, in the
final analysis,
the United
States are not
so powerful as
is believed,
neither in the
economic field,
nor in the
military. Each
time that the
rulers thought
they had found
the solution, it
turned out,
after a while,
that the
solution only
made things
worse.
For example, in
the 1980s, in
order to escape
recession, the
US
multinationals
fell upon Latin
America and
other regions of
the Third World,
gobbling up
their raw
materials, their
businesses and
their markets.
But this
neoliberal
offensive so
impoverished
these countries,
provoking
economic
catastrophes and
hence increasing
resistance that
Latin America
turned to the
left. From 1989
Washington
launched a
global war to
ensure its total
control over
oil. But oil
continues to
escape it. As
from 2001 Bush
launched his war
against the
so-called Evil
Axis, but only
succeeded in
strengthening
resistance in
all regions of
the world.
The United
States seem to
be very strong,
but are they
really so ? With
all their
dollars, all
their
technologies and
all their
crimes, they
have lost the
war in Korea
(1950) and the
war in Vietnam
(1961-1975),
they have had to
withdraw from
Lebanon (1982)
and from Somalia
(1993). They
would not have
won in
Yugoslavia
(1999) if
President
Milosevic had
accepted a land
war. They have
already lost in
Iraq and in
Afghanistan,
even if they do
not yet
recognize the
fact. Are they
not a 'paper
tiger' ? In the
long run, aren't
people who
defend their
wealth and their
future stronger
than dollars and
missiles ?
The United
States spend far
more on their
military budget
than all the
other nations of
the world
together but
that no longer
succeeds in
ensuring their
world supremacy.
One might say
that they are
their own
victims of their
fundamental
contradiction :
everything that
they do is
against the
interests of the
immense majority
of the
inhabitants of
the planet, so
they themselves
create the force
that will
destroy them.
An army cannot
be stronger than
the economy that
finances it. And
the basic
weakness that
will prevent the
US rulers from
attaining their
objective is
that the US
economy is
sawing the
branch on which
it is sitting.
By underpaying
its workers, by
delocalizing
part of its
production, by
ruining the
countries of the
Third World that
should be its
partners it is
ceaselessly
impoverishing
those to whom it
should be
selling. This
problem cannot
be resolved by
either of the
two options, the
militarist or
the
'intelligent'
one. The
militarists
increase the
expenditure and
the resistance.
The
'intelligent'
option, while
reducing the
terror
disseminated by
direct warfare,
also encourages
resistance.
Whatever tactics
are chosen the
United States
will continue to
wage war
throughout the
world in order
to impose their
economic system
and their
interests. It is
urgent to
recreate a
strong peace
movement and for
peoples'
sovereignty.
Notes -
The links
between the
economy and the
war are analyzed
in the book Bush
le cyclone :
Bush le cyclone
(in French and
Spanish). This
book is
particularly
concerned with
the question
'Who commands
Bush ?' And,
therefore, the
next President.
These questions
will also be
tackled at the
next seminar
organized by
Investig'Action
in Brussels (in
French) on 8-9
November. For
information :
magali.investigaction@gmail.com
Make a comment and
have it posted here!
.jpg)
Wes
Penre is a researcher,
journalist, the owner of the
domains
