Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The American Hegemony: The Neoconservative Threat To International O

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

  • The American Hegemony: The Neoconservative Threat To International O

    THE AMERICAN HEGEMONY: THE NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL ORDER

    CounterPunch
    March 4 2015

    by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    Last week I was invited to address an important conference of the
    Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from
    around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people
    seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year
    the friendly relations between America and Russia that President
    Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of
    Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust
    between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the
    Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear
    armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent
    propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western
    media. Washington's gratuitous demonization of the Russian president,
    Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has
    the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.

    Washington's reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust
    achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of
    nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it.

    Again, as during the Cold War the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks
    the earth.

    Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is
    this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US
    Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics
    and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about
    whom I wrote recently?

    It was my task to answer this question for the conference. You can
    read my February 25 and February 26 addresses below. But first
    you should understand what nuclear war means. You can gain that
    understanding here.

    The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative
    Ideology of American Hegemony,

    Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted
    by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State
    Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon.

    Paul Craig Roberts

    Colleagues,

    What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the
    international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences,
    but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in
    the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington's foreign policy.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint
    on Washington's power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time
    China's rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the
    United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the "world's only
    superpower." Neoconservatives proclaimed "the end of history."

    By the "end of history" neoconservatives mean that the competition
    between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History
    has chosen "American Democratic-Capitalism." It is Washington's
    responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to
    Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History's
    choice of American democratic-capitalism.

    In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong
    to the proletariat but to Washington.

    The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique
    status of being "the exceptional country," and the American people
    acquire exalted status as "the indispensable people."

    If a country is "the exceptional country," it means that all other
    countries are unexceptional. If a people are "indispensable," it means
    other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in
    Washington's 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These
    wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed,
    and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to
    protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The
    explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard
    Washington's aggression as aggression, but as History's purpose.

    We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington's disdain
    for Russia's national interests and in Washington's propagandistic
    response to Russian diplomacy.

    The neoconservative ideology requires that Washington maintain its
    Uni-power status, because this status is necessary for Washington's
    hegemony and History's purpose.

    The neoconservative doctrine of US world supremacy is most clearly
    and concisely stated by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative who
    has held many high positions: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
    Director of Policy Planning US Department of State, Assistant Secretary
    of State, Ambassador to Indonesia, Undersecretary of Defense for
    Policy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank.

    In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz stated the neoconservative doctrine of American
    world supremacy:

    "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival,
    either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere,
    that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the
    Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
    regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent
    any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would,
    under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

    For clarification, a "hostile power" is a country with an independent
    policy (Russia, China, Iran, and formerly Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi,
    Assad).

    This bold statement struck the traditional American foreign policy
    establishment as a declaration of American Imperialism. The document
    was rewritten in order to soften and disguise the blatant assertion of
    supremacy without changing the intent. These documents are available
    online, and you can examine them at your convenience.

    Softening the language allowed the neoconservatives to rise to
    foreign policy dominance. The neoconservatives are responsible for the
    Clinton regime's attacks on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Neoconservatives,
    especially Paul Wolfowitz, are responsible for the George W. Bush
    regime's invasion of Iraq. The neoconservatives are responsible for
    the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in Libya, the assault on Syria,
    the propaganda against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen,
    the color revolutions in former Soviet Republics, the attempted
    "Green Revolution" in Iran, the coup in Ukraine, and the demonization
    of Vladimir Putin.

    A number of thoughtful Americans suspect that the neoconservatives
    are responsible for 9/11, as that event gave the neoconservatives the
    "New Pearl Harbor" that their position papers said was necessary in
    order to launch their wars for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 led
    directly and instantly to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Washington
    has been fighting since 2001. Neoconservatives controlled all the
    important government positions necessary for a "false flag" attack.

    Neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who
    is married to another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, implemented and
    oversaw Washington's coup in Ukraine and chose the new government.

    The neoconservatives are highly organized and networked,
    well-financed, supported by the print and TV media, and backed by
    the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. There is no
    countervailing power to their influence on US foreign power.

    The neoconservative doctrine goes beyond the Brzezinski doctrine,
    which dissented from Detente and provocatively supported dissidents
    inside the Soviet empire. Despite its provocative character, the
    Brzezinski doctrine remained a doctrine of Great Power politics and
    containment. It is not a doctrine of US world hegemony.

    While the neoconservatives were preoccupied for a decade with their
    wars in the Middle East, creating a US Africa Command, organizing
    color revolutions, exiting disarmament treaties, surrounding Russia
    with military bases, and "pivoting to Asia" to surround China with
    new air and naval bases, Vladimir Putin led Russia back to economic
    and military competence and successfully asserted an independent
    Russian foreign policy.

    When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington's planned invasion of
    Syria and Washington's planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives
    realized that they had failed the "first objective" of the Wolfowitz
    Doctrine and had allowed "the re-emergence of a new rival . . . on
    the territory of the former Soviet Union" with the power to block
    unilateral action by Washington.

    The attack on Russia began. Washington had spent $5 billion over a
    decade creating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine
    and cultivating Ukrainian politicians. The NGOs were called into
    the streets. The extreme nationalists or nazi elements were used
    to introduce violence, and the elected democratic government was
    overthrown. The intercepted conversation between Victoria Nuland and
    the US ambassador in Kiev, in which the two Washington operatives
    choose the members of the new Ukrainian government, is well known.

    If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and
    Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating
    politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics.

    If the information is correct, Russia can expect more "color
    revolutions" or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union.

    Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.

    The conflict in Ukraine is often called a "civil war." This is
    incorrect. A civil war is when two sides fight for the control of the
    government. The break-away republics in eastern and southern Ukraine
    are fighting a war of secession.

    Washington would have been happy to use its coup in Ukraine to
    evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base as this would have been a
    strategic military achievement. However, Washington is pleased that
    the "Ukraine crisis" that Washington orchestrated has resulted in the
    demonization of Vladimir Putin, thus permitting economic sanctions
    that have disrupted Russia's economic and political relations with
    Europe. The sanctions have kept Europe in Washington's orbit.

    Washington has no interest in resolving the Ukrainian situation. The
    situation can be resolved diplomatically only if Europe can achieve
    sufficient sovereignty over its foreign policy to act in Europe's
    interest instead of Washington's interest.

    The neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony is a threat to the
    sovereignty of every country. The doctrine requires subservience to
    Washington's leadership and to Washington's purposes. Independent
    governments are targeted for destabilization. The Obama regime
    overthrew the reformist government in Honduras and currently is at
    work destabilizing Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, and
    most likely also Armenia and the former Central Asian Soviet Republics.

    Yalta and its consequences have to do with Great Power rivalries. But
    in the neoconservative doctrine, there is only one Great Power-the
    Uni-power. There are no others, and no others are to be permitted.

    Therefore, unless a moderate foreign policy arises in Washington and
    displaces the neoconservatives, the future is one of conflict.

    It would be a strategic error to dismiss the neoconservative ideology
    as unrealistic. The doctrine is unrealistic, but it is also the guiding
    force of US foreign policy and is capable of producing a world war.

    In their conflict with Washington's hegemony, Russia and China are
    disadvantaged. The success of American propaganda during the Cold
    War, the large differences between living standards in the US and
    those in communist lands, overt communist political oppression, at
    times brutal, and the Soviet collapse created in the minds of many
    people nonexistent virtues for the United States. As English is the
    world language and the Western media is cooperative, Washington is
    able to control explanations regardless of the facts. The ability
    of Washington to be the aggressor and to blame the victim encourages
    Washington's march to more aggression.

    This concludes my remarks. Tomorrow I will address whether there
    are domestic political restraints or economic restraints on the
    neoconservative ideology.

    Paul Craig Roberts, Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta
    Conference, Moscow, February 26, 2015

    Colleagues,

    At the plenary session yesterday I addressed the threat that the
    neoconservative ideology poses to international relations. In this
    closing session I address whether there are any internal restraints
    on this policy from the US population and whether there are economic
    restraints.

    Just as 9/11 served to launch Washington's wars for hegemony in the
    Middle East, 9/11 served to create the American police state. The
    Constitution and the civil liberties it protects quickly fell to
    the accumulation of power in the executive branch that a state of
    war permitted.

    New laws, some clearly pre-prepared such as the PATRIOT Act, executive
    orders, presidential directives, and Department of Justice memos
    created an executive authority unaccountable to the US Constitution
    and to domestic and international law.

    Suddenly Americans could be detained indefinitely without cause
    presented to a court. Habeas corpus, a constitutional protection
    which prohibits any such detention, has been set aside.

    Suddenly people could be tortured into confessions in violation of
    the right against self-incrimination and in violation of domestic
    and international laws against torture.

    Suddenly Americans and Washington's closest allies could be spied on
    indiscriminately without the need of warrants demonstrating cause.

    The Obama regime added to the Bush regime's transgressions the
    assertion of the right of the executive branch to assassinate US
    citizens without due process of law.

    The police state was organized under a massive new Department of
    Homeland Security. Almost immediately whistleblower protections,
    freedom of the press and speech, and protest rights were attacked
    and reduced.

    It was not long before the director of Homeland Security declared that
    the department's focus has shifted from Muslim terrorists to "domestic
    extremists," an undefined category. Anyone can be swept into this
    category. Homes of war protesters were raided and grand juries were
    convened to investigate the protesters. Americans of Arab descent who
    donated to charities-even charities on the State Department's approved
    list-that aided Palestinian children were arrested and sentenced to
    prison for "providing material support to terrorism."

    All of this and more, including police brutality, has had a chilling
    effect on protests against the wars and the loss of civil liberty.

    The rising protests from the American population and from soldiers
    themselves that eventually forced Washington to end the Vietnam War
    have been prevented in the 21st century by the erosion of rights,
    intimidation, loss of mobility (no-fly list), job dismissal, and other
    heavy-handed actions inconsistent with a government accountable to
    law and the people.

    In an important sense, the US has emerged from the "war on terror"
    as an executive branch dictatorship unconstrained by the media and
    barely, if at all, constrained by Congress and the federal courts. The
    lawlessness of the executive branch has spread into governments
    of Washington's vassal states and into the Federal Reserve, the
    International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank, all of
    which violate their charters and operate outside their legal powers.

    Jobs offshoring destroyed the American industrial and manufacturing
    unions. Their demise and the current attack on the public employee
    unions has left the Democratic Party financially dependent on the same
    organized private interest groups as the Republicans. Both parties now
    report to the same interest groups. Wall Street, the military/security
    complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and the extractive industries
    (oil, mining, timber) control the government regardless of the party in
    power. These powerful interests all have a stake in American hegemony.

    The message is that the constellation of forces preclude internal
    political change.

    Hegemony's Achilles heel is the US economy. The fairy tale of American
    economic recovery supports America's image as the safe haven, an image
    that keeps the dollar's value up, the stock market up, and interest
    rates down. However, there is no economic information that supports
    this fairy tale.

    Real median household income has not grown for years and is below
    the levels of the early 1970s. There has been no growth in real
    retail sales for six years. The labor force is shrinking. The labor
    force participation rate has declined since 2007 as has the civilian
    employment to population ratio. The 5.7 percent reported unemployment
    rate is achieved by not counting discouraged workers as part of the
    work force. (A discouraged worker is a person who is unable to find
    a job and has given up looking.)

    A second official unemployment rate, which counts short-term
    (less than one year) discouraged workers and is seldom reported,
    stands at 11.2 percent. The US government stopped including long-term
    discouraged workers (discouraged for more than one year) in 1994. If
    the long-term discouraged are counted, the current unemployment rate
    in the US stands at 23.2 percent.

    The offshoring of American manufacturing and professional service
    jobs such as software engineering and Information Technology has
    decimated the middle class. The middle class has not found jobs with
    incomes comparable to those moved abroad. The labor cost savings
    from offshoring the jobs to Asia has boosted corporate profits, the
    performance bonuses of executives and capital gains of shareholders.

    Thus all income and wealth gains are concentrated in a few hands at
    the top of the income distribution. The number of billionaires grows
    as destitution reaches from the lower economic class into the middle
    class. American university graduates unable to find jobs return to
    their childhood rooms in their parents' homes and work as waitresses
    and bartenders in part-time jobs that will not support an independent
    existence.

    With a large percentage of the young economically unable to form
    households, residential construction, home furnishings, and home
    appliances suffer economic weakness. Cars can still be sold only
    because the purchaser can obtain 100 percent financing in a six-year
    loan. The lenders sell the loans, which are securitized and sold
    to gullible investors, just as were the mortgage-backed financial
    instruments that precipitated the 2007 US financial crash.

    None of the problems that created the 2008 recession, and that
    were created by the 2008 recession, have been addressed. Instead,
    policymakers have used an expansion of debt and money to paper over
    the problems. Money and debt have grown much more than US GDP, which
    raises questions about the value of the US dollar and the credit
    worthiness of the US government. On July 8, 2014, my colleagues and
    I pointed out that when correctly measured, US national debt stands
    at 185 percent of GDP.

    This raises the question: Why was the credit rating of Russia, a
    country with an extremely low ratio of debt to GDP, downgraded and not
    that of the US? The answer is that the downgrading of Russian credit
    worthiness was a political act directed against Russia in behalf of
    US hegemony.

    How long can fairy tales and political acts keep the US house of
    cards standing? A rigged stock market. A rigged interest rate. A
    rigged dollar exchange value, a rigged and suppressed gold price. The
    current Western financial system rests on world support for the US
    dollar and on nothing more.

    The problem with neoliberal economics, which pervades all countries,
    even Russia and China, is that neoliberal economics is a tool of
    American economic imperialism, as is Globalism. As long as countries
    targeted by Washington for destabilization support and cling to
    the American doctrines that enable the destabilization, the targets
    are defenseless.

    If Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank were willing to finance Greece,
    Italy, and Spain, perhaps those countries could be separated from
    the EU and NATO. The unraveling of Washington's empire would begin.

    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury
    and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts' How the
    Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic
    format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/04/the-neoconservative-threat-to-international-order/




    From: A. Papazian
Working...
X