America’s Quest for Global Dominance

Mohammad Alamgir

 

In a macroscopic view of United States foreign policy from World War II to the post-Iraq War reconstruction it can be clearly seen the United States’ political, military and economic motives, in comparison, often in sharp contrast, to its outward rhetorical support for democracy, the Middle-East peace process, free trade, and human rights. There are clear differences between positions taken by the US government and the people of the world regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq. It can be examined the doctrinal thinking of the Establishment in the United Kingdom and the US, such as in regard to propaganda use, centralized decision making and imperialism of Western powers from recent American invasions to the European empires.

In September 2002 the Bush administration announced its National Security Strategy, which declared the right to resort to force to eliminate any perceived challenge to US global hegemony, which is to be permanent. The new grand strategy aroused deep concern worldwide, even within the foreign policy elite at home. Also in September, a propaganda campaign was launched to depict Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States and to insinuate that he was responsible for the 9/11 atrocities and was planning others. President Bush and his associates also persisted in undermining international efforts to reduce threats to the environment that are recognized to be severe, with pretexts that barely concealed their devotion to narrow sectors of private power.

Current U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are not a specific response to September 11, but simply the continuation of a consistent half-century of foreign policy an “imperial grand strategy” in which the United States has attempted to “maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force. U.S. legal code definition of terrorism, is an exact description of U.S. foreign policy (especially regarding Cuba, Central America, Vietnam and much of the Middle East), although the term is rarely used in this way in the U.S. media even when the World Court in 1986 condemned Washington for “unlawful use of force” in Nicaragua. U.S. is a rogue nation in its foreign policies and its “contempt for international law,”

Bush administration was determined to use terrorism as an excuse to pursue a radical right-wing agenda. Other states perceived the same opportunity. Russia eagerly joined the coalition against terror expecting to receive authorization for its atrocities in Chechnya, and was not disappointed. China happily joined for similar reasons. Israel recognized that it would be able to crush Palestinians even more brutally, with even firmer US support. And so on, throughout much of the world.

America’s strategy for the future is nothing less than the maintenance of American hegemony through the use or threat of military force, a strategy that threatens to leave the world a more dangerous and divided place. The only other world superpower is, with any chance whatever of curbing America’s ideologically driven quest for global dominance, World Public Opinion. It is a propaganda war waged upon the American public by the Bush administration. Now it is maintained and expanded by Obama Administration. This is by no means a new development. American foreign policy historically is showing a remarkably pattern of hypocrisy, racism, exploitation, and cynical manipulation of public opinion by successive US administrations. What is new and disturbing about the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq is the precedent America and Britain have set for establishing new norms of international law. The concept of “preventative war” must have its victims and those victims must be weak, yet important enough to be worth the trouble. Any country that is opposed to US interests but is capable of defending itself i.e., those with nuclear capabilities, will be left alone. The clear and catastrophic message to opponents of American hegemony is to get nuclear-quick. So the view of American foreign policy lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state.

There are many questions still waited for answer i.e, Was the United States really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the United States government hypocritical when it condemns state sponsored terrorism when it sponsored terrorism itself against such countries as Cuba and Nicaragua? And, how does the United States rationalize the School of the Americas, which has long been understood as a training ground for Latin American neo-fascist terrorists? Is the United States truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the “Saudi Plan” set forth in early 2002, which would offer “full recognition and integration of Israel into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders?” Why did USA goes to war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD’s could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security?

The answers are surprisingly consistent with what US foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. In 1965, Indonesia expressed its intention to elder statesman Ellsworth Bunker that they wished to stand on their own two feet in developing their economy, free from foreign, especially Western influence’. A National Intelligence Estimate in September 1965 warned that if the efforts of the mass-based PKI to energize and unite the Indonesian nation succeeded, Indonesia would provide a powerful example for the underdeveloped world and hence a credit to communism and a setback for Western prestige. A US backed coup ensued, killing a lot number of people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. This is the cost, of not aligning with the “master” state.

There are other ways to get the job done, such via the UN, the World Court, and so forth. Given that the U.S. tends to dominate the UN and most other international agencies, this does seem to raise two important issues. First what really is the difference between the U.S. playing the hegemonic role via the UN, etc., and doing so all on its own? But second, it does show the arrogance of the U.S. that even dominating the world through international organizations it largely runs is still “not good enough” for it. Is America really an evil empire, I think an objective look at the historical record will provide the evidence that America has done well too for people than any country in the history of the world. The United States rebuilt Europe twice in the 20th century after two world wars. Europe was liberated from the Nazi menace primarily through the intervention of the United States. Eastern Europe was liberated from the tyranny of communism primarily because the United States was willing to take the leadership role in destroying it.

The U.S. neglect or spurning of the World Court and the UN, but these agencies were also set up by the imperialist powers, and serve to support the continuation of capitalist-imperialism. The only real solution to this problem of not just “U.S. world hegemony”, but of the capitalist-imperialist system that lies behind it, is social revolution. The basic problem, in both this country and the world, is the continued rule of the capitalist-imperialist class, and the basic solution to that problem is for the working people of the world to overthrow that murderous ruling class. U.S. economic dominance had fallen from 50% at its post-World War II high to only about half of that in 1973. Doesn’t that show that the U.S. is doing a pretty crappy job of dominating the world? In a similar vein, “why there is such a huge national debt and trade deficit if the U.S. is so in control of the world economy?” There is a giant, successful conspiracy running things in US. If the U.S. is actually dominating the world, and doing so for at least 60 years now, then there has to be some continuing, coherent political body within the U.S. that is coordinating all this. I think this body is the U.S. capitalist-imperialist ruling class which rules via its two main political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, as well as through its ownership and control of almost all the media, education, and so forth.

Zameer36.com

About Marc Brentwood

Check Also

Integrated Border Management Pakistan

Integrated Border Management: Scope, Challenges and Framework for Pakistan

by Rashid Munir Siddiqui (2017) Table of Contents Abstract              …

Powered by keepvid themefull earn money