Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

America summed up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • America summed up

    I got this on e-mail, i try a cut & Paste:-
    Upon the demise of Soviet Union 18 years ago, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced the emergence of a New World Order. He called it a path to peace in these words: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor”.

    And he claimed that under this new world order “the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”

    But he was to soon prove his pious pronouncements to be mere rhetoric, a deception. Calling it an action to punish Saddam Hussain for invading Kuwait, an act that he had initially condoned, and in collusion with his European allies he went out to pound a hapless Iraqi army, in the process testing out his new weapon systems on live targets and offloading redundant ammunition on Iraqi positions, all at the cost of the frightened Arabs. The world got a preview of the rise of a “unipolar world” to be ruthlessly controlled and steered by an imperialist America to serve its own ends.

    Avoiding war mongering, President Clinton cleverly focused on rebuilding the shattered economy that had cost George H.W. Bush his job. His success at creating a domineering American position with a strong economy under his belt and substantial international goodwill - thanks to his policy of multilateralism, he convinced the world that the “New American Century” was at hand.

    But by 2008 the picture had drastically changed. America was gasping for breath. It was sinking deeper into the hole it found itself in. Having exercised undisputed political, economic and military power in the twentieth century, it was now in the throes of decline, its fall from power imminent.


    In 2000 the American people blundered by electing George W. Bush. This not only adversely impacted their fortunes but also those of the people of the world. Carrying an agenda of remodeling the world to suit their myopic designs, egged on by the war machine to use aggression as a tool, 9/11 providing the pretext, pushing the policy of unilateralism and displaying the arrogance of a ruffian, President Bush and his coterie of neo-cons ventured out on a mission that would ultimately prove self-destructive. Defying the will of the international community, throwing the rule of international law out of the window, G.W. Bush attacked Afghanistan to wipe out Al-Qaeda (that many suspect does not exist) and then Iraq that had not even provoked any one, listing North Korea and Iran as the next battle grounds. Justifications for attack were drummed up and people and governments were manipulated, bullied and coerced to fall in line. NATO was turned into an aggressive military alliance, provoking Russia and laying ground for another Cold War.

    All this was done for “good causes”, people of the world were told. It was necessary to “rid the world of terrorism”, to “liberate people from tyranny”, to destroy “the axis of evil” and to eliminate threats to the security of the West.

    The real agenda was, however, different. They were out to demolish unfriendly regimes under the garb of “ushering in democracy”, splinter and remap the Muslim world, crush Islamic groups opposed to US policies, grab energy resources, extend hegemony into former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics, promote the interests of American military industrial complex that thrives on war, terrorize the world into submission and financially gain from the resulting chaos. Like a drunken cowboy, America was wildly shooting off the hip – totally out of control.

    These actions brought nothing but ruin to America. The whimsical 3-trillion dollar war in Iraq and the failed “’war on terror” in Afghanistan, both executed on credit, broke the back of US economy (military spending increased by 60%, excluding war expenditure), compromised its standing as world power, exposed the limitations of its military strength once again, earned universal scorn for its policies of unilateralism, subversion, regime change and human rights violations, caused a steep rise in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and strengthened the Jihadi resolve to defeat American imperialism. But this was not all.

    Iran laughed off the American threats of invasion knowing its incapability to open the third front. European allies began dissociating from US adventurism and refused to follow Bush policies that ran counter to their economic and security interests. Germany, France, Spain and Italy, among others, scuttled Bush’s efforts to induct Ukraine and Georgia into US led NATO, signaling policy differences. EU refused to participate in troop surge in Afghanistan and brushed aside Bush’s call for sanctions against Russia for counterattacking Georgia. Russia, feeling threatened by intrusive US moves in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia - areas critical to its security, responded aggressively on the issue of Georgia and anti-missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    The neo-cons proved to be out touch with reality. They refused to see that there was a new world out there which could neither be reshaped nor controlled by the use of brute military might. They shunned multilateralism and refused to resort to a combination of intellectual, political and military strengths. They ignored the fact that political and military power is the extension of economic and financial strength, forgetting that just about 15 years back the Soviet Union had collapsed for this very reason - it was politically and militarily a “first world” power but a “third world” economy. It simply could not sustain itself.

    Domestically, the economic and fiscal picture turned bleak, severely restraining America’s ability to assert itself externally. National debt approached ten trillion dollars and next year’s federal budget is projected to run in deficit of 1.2 to 2 trillion-dollars. Collapse of speculative financial markets caused American economic meltdown that also crushed many world economies. The dollar is under threat of being replaced as international currency for oil trade and as world’s reserve currency. Some even speculate a US default on its debt by 2009 that may force it to revalue the dollar, sending a wave of fear among foreign investors, causing a liquidity crunch. In short, America faces the biggest financial challenge since the Great Depression.

    The collapse of neo-con doctrine caused Bush to retreat. He was forced to come to terms with those he called the “axis of evil”. He negotiated with North Korea, in a reversal of policy on Iraq he signed a troop withdrawal agreement, he struggled to come to a tacit understanding with Iran and, as reports indicate, he has signaled opening of a dialogue with his most rabid adversary - the Taliban. Failure written large on its face, America has lost its moral authority and influence as a super power, with the diminishing limits of American power plainly visible.

    A nervous nation scrambled to change guard, but was eight years too late. The havoc wrought by Bush administration had prematurely triggered the beginning of the end of America’s era as the sole and mighty super power. The grossly unjust and archaic economic, political and military “uni-polar” world order, or the “New World Order” as George H.W. Bush had called it, collapsed just 18 years after it was born and which Vladimir Putin described in these words: “It refers to one type of situation, one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision making. It is a world in which there is one Master, one Sovereign. This is pernicious…. unacceptable …. impossible.”

    President-elect Obama brings an end to a long national nightmare called the Bush administration, but faces an uphill task. He inherits a mess of un-surmountable proportions, including two wars that are going nowhere, a military budget almost equal to the world’s combined military budget and increasing, severely curtailed financial resources, social programs in tatters and the economy in deep recession. He is going to preside over a country that goes hat in hand to its creditors asking for money to fuel its hubris. Externally, he faces an international community irate with the misuse of American power and happy to see it lose its monopoly.

    There are no easy solutions in sight to the crises that the US imperialism has created for itself and for others. His commitment to “change” would be a tall order. By the time he gets even close to shutting the Pandora’s box that Bush had opened, set his house in order, curb the establishment’s urge for futile self destructive wars and substantially reduce military spending, put the economy back on track and establish America’s soft international image, political realities around the globe would have substantially changed. Far reaching geopolitical developments would have given rise to a new power-paradigm.

    World’s economic epicenter has shifted to Asia. Emerging economies are poised to play a greater role in world affairs. An economically strong China is positioning itself as one of the future super powers. Resurgent Russia is beginning to reassert itself. Western Europe, secure from Soviet threat, recovered from its back-breaking wars and wary of American arrogance, is breaking free of American protectionism.

    A “New Multi-polar World Order” is now emerging that is likely to create a balance of power with a hope for stability. Some even prefer to call it the Real World Order in which the US will no more be able to control the international agenda. Smaller countries of Asia that bore the brunt of America’s aggressive policies are taking a sigh of relief at the demise of American imperialism, remaining skeptical of the shape of things to come.
    But despite all of its troubles, America cannot be written off, not completely, not yet.

    Although its power has prematurely reached its limits and will likely decline, America remains for now the biggest military power and the biggest economy, though not strong enough to wage wars. The US National Intelligence Council in its report “Global Trends 2025” also admits that the US will remain the most powerful yet less dominant country in years to come. The new administration will therefore have to accept America as one of the great powers, as opposed to being the only power center that it was, and transit from the mindset of arrogance to that of humility that Obama has promised.

  • #2
    Re: America summed up

    I didn't write this myself BTW.

    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: America summed up

      Mega:

      Could you vet this for your Yank cousins. It's an excerpt from a piece by John Newsinger.


      The Second World War had been fought, as far as the British ruling class was concerned, to protect the British Empire from the threat posed by Nazi Germany and its allies. Although the Nazi threat was successfully destroyed, the British Empire nonetheless fell victim to the strains of total war. The war left Britain exhausted both militarily and economically. When the Labor government came to power in 1945, it found itself confronted by widespread colonial unrest, and at the same time dependent on the United States, an imperial rival that was intent on replacing British influence throughout the world with its own. The British had neither the economic nor military strength to hold onto their empire and were forced into an unwilling retreat.

      The weakness of the British position was not immediately apparent. Initially, the Labor government was able to restore French rule in Vietnam and Dutch rule in Indonesia by bloody military interventions, to consolidate Royalist rule in Greece, and to suppress the left in Malaya, precipitating a guerrilla insurgency in 1948.1 Decisive, however, were developments in India where power had to be reluctantly surrendered to a Congress government that was regarded as dangerously left-wing. What the Labor government had hoped to achieve was the hand-over of limited powers to pro-imperialist politicians in a balkanized India where British power would still be dominant (a policy remarkably similar to U.S. policy in Iraq today). India would remain a loyal supporter of the British Empire with Indian troops available to fight in its wars, and British military bases would remain on the subcontinent. Prime Minister Nehru and the Indian National Congress, pushed on by widespread popular unrest, effectively thwarted this plan. While the Labor government seriously considered police action to crush Congress, it was reluctantly recognized that Britain did not have the military strength and economic resources to defeat the resulting rebellion. Moreover, Washington would not finance such an imperial endeavor: they wanted to replace the British, not prop them up. As Prime Minister Attlee warned his Cabinet colleagues, there was no “practical alternative” to evacuating India.2


      What is truly remarkable is the way that Labor politicians were subsequently able to transform this story into a heroic episode of anti-imperialist statesmanship whereby Britain “gave” independence to India. The loss of India was a massive blow that seriously damaged British imperial pretensions.

      What the British hoped for at this time was a partnership with the United States on relatively equal terms. Attlee and his foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, were confident that economic recovery would restore British power. Indeed, the Labor government’s decision to develop British nuclear weapons was intended to strengthen their hand in relation to the United States rather than a response to any Soviet threat. As Bevin insisted:
      I don’t want any other foreign secretary of this country to be talked at by a Secretary of State in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We have got to have this thing over here whatever it costs...we’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it.3
      Hopes of an equal relationship were soon eclipsed, however.

      Even in the Middle East, which was regarded as a vital British interest, the British found themselves dependent on the United States. When the Iranians nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in May 1951, the Labor government considered military intervention to overthrow the nationalist Mossedegh government. The British minister of defense, Emanuel Shinwell, warned that if tough action was not taken, “Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries would be encouraged to think they could try things on; the next thing might be an attempt to nationalise the Suez Canal.”4 Plans for military intervention were abandoned “in the light of the United States’ attitude...We could not afford to break with the United States on an issue of this kind.”5 Eventually, the Mossedegh government was to be overthrown in 1953 by a CIA-sponsored coup, supported by the British, which installed the Shah in power. The United States replaced Britain as the dominant power in Iran and British control over Iranian oil was ended.

      The Labor government had reluctantly come to recognize that while Britain still had global interests, the British state no longer had the power to protect them. Only the United States had the necessary economic and military resources. Consequently the keystone of British foreign policy became its alliance with the United States. In order to protect its global interests, Britain became a subordinate partner in the American empire. When British and U.S. interests conflicted, the British would, if necessary, sacrifice those interests in order to ensure that the United States remained the guarantor of Britain’s global interests. This relationship was often to prove difficult, sometimes humiliating, but the interests of British capital came first.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: America summed up

        Originally posted by don View Post
        ...The loss of India was a massive blow that seriously damaged British imperial pretensions...
        My UK-born mother-in-law, who emigrated to Canada in the 1950s, still insists the British "never should have given up India". In return I like to remind her that "Canada will never be a free country until we get the Queen off our money"...

        Mega: The article you posted to start this thread is a one-dimensional and stereotyped view of the USA as one might expect from a knee-jerk anti-American. Try reading some your countryman Alistair Cooke's writings about the USA...combined with the stuff already posted it may be a good balance.
        Last edited by GRG55; December 29, 2008, 11:28 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: America summed up

          Originally posted by Mega View Post
          I didn't write this myself BTW.

          Mike
          It was written by Shahid R. Siddiqi.

          Shahid R. Siddiqi began his career in the Pakistan Air Force. He later joined the corporate sector with which he remained associated until recently in a senior management position. Alongside, he worked as a broadcaster with Radio Pakistan for over 11 years where, among other programs, he compered a daily English program 'Pakistan Calling'. He also remained the Islamabad bureau chief of an English weekly magazine, "Pakistan & Gulf Economist". After immigrating to the U.S. in 1989 he co-founded the Asian American Republican Club in Maryland to encourage the participation of Asian Americans in the mainstream political process. He currently lives in Lahore (Pakistan) and works as a freelance journalist. He can be reached at: shahidrsiddiqi@gmail.com.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: America summed up

            Originally posted by don View Post
            Mega:

            Could you vet this for your Yank cousins. It's an excerpt from a piece by John Newsinger.


            The Second World War had been fought, as far as the British ruling class was concerned, to protect the British Empire from the threat posed by Nazi Germany and its allies. Although the Nazi threat was successfully destroyed, the British Empire nonetheless fell victim to the strains of total war. The war left Britain exhausted both militarily and economically. When the Labor government came to power in 1945, it found itself confronted by widespread colonial unrest, and at the same time dependent on the United States, an imperial rival that was intent on replacing British influence throughout the world with its own. The British had neither the economic nor military strength to hold onto their empire and were forced into an unwilling retreat.

            The weakness of the British position was not immediately apparent. Initially, the Labor government was able to restore French rule in Vietnam and Dutch rule in Indonesia by bloody military interventions, to consolidate Royalist rule in Greece, and to suppress the left in Malaya, precipitating a guerrilla insurgency in 1948.1 Decisive, however, were developments in India where power had to be reluctantly surrendered to a Congress government that was regarded as dangerously left-wing. What the Labor government had hoped to achieve was the hand-over of limited powers to pro-imperialist politicians in a balkanized India where British power would still be dominant (a policy remarkably similar to U.S. policy in Iraq today). India would remain a loyal supporter of the British Empire with Indian troops available to fight in its wars, and British military bases would remain on the subcontinent. Prime Minister Nehru and the Indian National Congress, pushed on by widespread popular unrest, effectively thwarted this plan. While the Labor government seriously considered police action to crush Congress, it was reluctantly recognized that Britain did not have the military strength and economic resources to defeat the resulting rebellion. Moreover, Washington would not finance such an imperial endeavor: they wanted to replace the British, not prop them up. As Prime Minister Attlee warned his Cabinet colleagues, there was no “practical alternative” to evacuating India.2


            What is truly remarkable is the way that Labor politicians were subsequently able to transform this story into a heroic episode of anti-imperialist statesmanship whereby Britain “gave” independence to India. The loss of India was a massive blow that seriously damaged British imperial pretensions.

            What the British hoped for at this time was a partnership with the United States on relatively equal terms. Attlee and his foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, were confident that economic recovery would restore British power. Indeed, the Labor government’s decision to develop British nuclear weapons was intended to strengthen their hand in relation to the United States rather than a response to any Soviet threat. As Bevin insisted:
            I don’t want any other foreign secretary of this country to be talked at by a Secretary of State in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We have got to have this thing over here whatever it costs...we’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it.3
            Hopes of an equal relationship were soon eclipsed, however.

            Even in the Middle East, which was regarded as a vital British interest, the British found themselves dependent on the United States. When the Iranians nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in May 1951, the Labor government considered military intervention to overthrow the nationalist Mossedegh government. The British minister of defense, Emanuel Shinwell, warned that if tough action was not taken, “Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries would be encouraged to think they could try things on; the next thing might be an attempt to nationalise the Suez Canal.”4 Plans for military intervention were abandoned “in the light of the United States’ attitude...We could not afford to break with the United States on an issue of this kind.”5 Eventually, the Mossedegh government was to be overthrown in 1953 by a CIA-sponsored coup, supported by the British, which installed the Shah in power. The United States replaced Britain as the dominant power in Iran and British control over Iranian oil was ended.

            The Labor government had reluctantly come to recognize that while Britain still had global interests, the British state no longer had the power to protect them. Only the United States had the necessary economic and military resources. Consequently the keystone of British foreign policy became its alliance with the United States. In order to protect its global interests, Britain became a subordinate partner in the American empire. When British and U.S. interests conflicted, the British would, if necessary, sacrifice those interests in order to ensure that the United States remained the guarantor of Britain’s global interests. This relationship was often to prove difficult, sometimes humiliating, but the interests of British capital came first.


            I say SPOT ON Don, think the guy is 100% on the money..............Britan has tried to "Direct" America post 1945............If you will i think of the US As Capt Kirk & Britian as Mr Spock.
            Mike

            Comment

            Working...
            X