|
Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies
John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle about CIA torture under the Bush regime, warns of the foreign policy a Joe Biden administration would pursue:
Literally the last thing I would do is to urge anybody to vote for Donald Trump. The president has been a disaster in every sense of the word and in both foreign and domestic policy. The country can’t take four more years of a Trump presidency. But Biden is no panacea. He’s a center-right placeholder. [..]
If you think things will change in foreign policy under a President Biden, think again. It’ll be the same old expansionist, militarist policy that we had under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. So go into the voting booth with your eyes open.
In my view Biden is more right than center. Even his campaign slogan is shared with the British conservatives.
A Joe Biden administration would extend the hostile policies towards Russia and China and would continue to push for regime change in Venezuela, Syria, Iran and Belarus. This even as the organ of U.S. foreign policy orthodoxy, Foreign Affairs, states that U.S. induced regime changes never achieve their aims:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s repeated assertion around the time of the Iraq war that Washington’s pursuit of “stability at the expense of democracy” in the Middle East had produced neither was broadly true. But it turned out to have a corollary—that pursuing democracy at the expense of stability might also produce neither, but at even higher cost.
…
Regime change will always tempt Washington. [..] The long, diverse, and tragic history of U.S.-backed regime change in the Middle East, however, suggests that such temptations—like most quick fixes that come along in life and politics—should be resisted. The next time U.S. leaders propose intervening in the region to overthrow a hostile regime, it can safely be assumed that such an enterprise will be less successful, more costly, and more replete with unintended consequences than proponents realize or admit. So far, at least, it has never been the other way around.
U.S. foreign policy does not change from presidency to presidency. In a recent interview President Bashar al-Assad of Syria explained why that is the case:
Question 9: You definitely follow the presidential campaign in the United States. And do you hope that the new US President, regardless of the name of the winner, will review sanctions policies towards Syria?
President Assad: We don’t usually expect presidents in the American elections, we only expect CEOs; because you have a board, this board is made of the lobbies and the big corporates like banks and armaments and oil, etc. So, what you have is a CEO, and this CEO doesn’t have the right or the authority to review; he has to implement. And that’s what happened to Trump when he became president after the elections –
Journalist: He used to be CEO for many years before.
President Assad: Exactly! And he is a CEO anyway. He wanted to follow or pursue his own policy, and he was about to pay the price – you remember the impeachment issue. He had to swallow every word he said before the elections. So, that’s why I said you don’t expect a president, you only expect a CEO. If you want to talk about changing the policy, you have one board – the same board will not change its policy. The CEO will change but the board is still the same, so don’t expect anything.
Question 10: Who are this board? Who are these people?
President Assad: As I said, this board is made up of the lobbies, so they implement whatever they want, and they control the Congress and the others, and the media, etc. So, there’s an alliance between those different self-vested interest corporations in the US.
Caitlin Johnstone would likely agree with that view. She argues that the two political camps in the U.S. hardly differ:
When you look at US politics, it appears as though there are two mainstream political factions that very strongly disagree with one another. “Divided” is a word that comes up a lot. “Polarized” is another.
…
But beneath all the hurled insults and heated debates, these two factions are actually furiously agreeing with one another. They’re agreeing the entire time.
They agree that the US government should remain the center of a globe-spanning empire; they just angrily quibble over a few of the details of how that empire should be run [..].
…
On all issues that most severely affect real people on mass scale, these two political factions are in emphatic agreement. They just pour a whole lot of sound and fury into the tiny one percent of the spectrum wherein they have some disagreement.
They do not allow for any mainstream discussion of if the oligarchic empire should continue to exist; all their issues, arguments and histrionics revolve around how it should exist.
This is what they are designed to do.
…
[P]olitics isn’t real in America. It’s a show. A two-handed sock puppet show to distract the audience while pickpockets rob them blind.
If you want to see things clearly, ignore the fake drama of the sock puppet show altogether and focus on advancing the real debate: that the US-centralized oligarchic empire is corrupt beyond redemption and should be completely dismantled.
I find it hard to disagree with these views.
Please forgive any redundancies in what I’m about to paste from a rather small tablet. I can’t see more than three paragraphs at a time and it was written on the subway.
Regarding U.S. policy and Venezuela. Indeed, Trump’s sanctions have *mostly* been enacted within various frameworks set up by the Bush II and Obama administrations. As with many other things, the persecution of Julian Assange included, much of what Trump has done can be considered taking the most drastic action possible within policies conceived and readied under Bush II and Obama (the former attempted at least a few coups, as has Trump; the latter to my knowledge never actually did) – AND – conceiving of an implementing NEW draconian policies with scope extending far beyond those of Obama. For one thing, the U.S. began acting unilaterally in its sanctions regime after failing to get the OAS to sign onto the more drastic measures.
But, as with the drone program (actually started under Bush/Cheney of course), the targeting of whistle blowers, the persecution (which became prosecution under Trump) of Julian Assange, and many other things (as is always the case – every subsequent executive expands on and abuses the powers claimed by the previous ones), Trump’s Venezuela policy is an evolution, not a revolution. Why do you think he is spared criticism in the “resistance” mainstream media, and instead praised lavishly for his draconian sanctions regime there – including praise from involved figures in the former Obama administration?
On another front, it can be argued that the Trump administration, through its way-too-close and deferential relationship with the Saudi head choppers (and bone sawers) have conspired with Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices low in order to hit out at Venezuela – and of course Iran. By looking the other way, Trump allowed the Saudis to make serious headway in their attempts to crush the U.S. shale producers and weaken Iran. Russia was likely also an intended target. But Venezuela paid the heaviest price given their reliance on oil exports and the already crippling sanctions mentioned previously.
Further, characterizing the assassination of Soleimani, who was in Iraq on a peace making mission as a diplomat, in terms of immediate body count by comparing it to the common occurrence of drone strikes on weddings and funerals under Bush, Obama AND Trump is a disingenuous attempt to minimize its severity and farther-reaching effects. In my personal opinion, it was a blatant attempt to up the ante in the cage rattling game so high that Iran would lose their cool and lash out with a major military retaliation against US military in the region or their “interests” and “allies.” Iran didn’t take the bait in the manner Trump’s cabinet wanted them to, hence a potential hot war was dodged. But that isn’t exactly being any less warlike than Obama.
The list goes on and on. Trump’s supporters continually try to spin his foreign policy (and other) record(s) this way and that in order to differentiate him in an allegedly meaningful way from Obama (it’s much easier to do comparing him to Bush II). It’s horsecrap and 100% Red vs. Blue partisan politics trying to disguise itself as anti-war and push the “no new wars” lie (again, I believe that if Trump is re-elected we will see a real hot war involving Iran, even if there are no “boots on the ground” in Iran) that his supporters cling to (and his detractors debunk) in pretending he’s any better (or worse) than Obama or any other president for that matter, save George W. Bush. All of this leaves out Israel, Africa, Yemen and Trump’s own attempted color revolutions in Hong Kong and Belarus, coups in Venezuela and Boliva and the aforementioned intentionally anti-humanitarian sanctions that have cost perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives in Venezuela and Iran.
Finally, with regards to Russia, Trump’s supporters (or detractors) can’t have it both ways. Either he’s been tougher on Russia than any previous president since the heyday of the Cold War, or he’s soft on them. It can’t be both. Caitlyn Johnstone laid out a nice list of the escalations and sanctions that Trump’s administration has put on Russia. So while the Democrat faction of the Pentagon Party and the mainstream corporate media (which almost all have deep “defense” ties and/or share board members with MIC corporations) like to cry about how limp wristed Trump’s Russia policies have been, they have, in fact been the opposite. The anti-Clinton camp (of which I was a member) and pro-Trump camp were both very vocal in saying that electing Hillary would inch us ever closer to a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States. It was mostly predicated on the Syria situation and “no-fly zones” but with the benefit of 3+ years of Trump presidency history, and the increased sanctions and maneuverings in and out of the nuclear weapons treaty, it’s safe to say we’re a lot closer to nuclear annihilation than we were before, no Killary even needed.
And speaking of Syria, it’s obvious that Trump’s drawdown there was a politically calculated move, with there being no real appetite among the American people for another Iraq and Assad already on the precipice of a victory – at least in retaining some of Syria’s sovereignty (much territory has been and is being stolen). Just shuffling illegal American military presence abroad around a little. It wasn’t Trump being anti-war from a “drain the swamp” or moralistic perspective – and – the situation is still fluid as readers of this blog know.
I’m certainly not saying Biden will be any better in the balance of things. The Democrat faction of the Pentagon Party has different fish to fry (with much overlap of course). But I would in fact expect a softening of the approach with Iran, Venezuela, China and a resumption of establishing relations with Cuba. As far as Russia and Syria – I can’t say for sure, but the situation isn’t the same as when Trump took office. It would take quite a bold move by the Biden administration to re-stoke any kind of war on Assad. It would probably be a continuation/evolution of the Trump approach.
By the way, I did read the MEE article linked above by ADKC. That looks to me like the first step in Trump’s much desired war with Iran should he be re-elected. More of the “maximum pressure” but turned up to 11 on every front, military, economic, political. It will, of course, run through Iraq. Iran is in the immediate crosshairs for Trump as soon as he’s got his lame duck second term and no concerns about assuaging the not-exactly-tiny-but-not-large (and very vocal) anti-war portion of his base.
All in all, just my rather long-winded $0.02.
Posted by: _K_C_ | Oct 8 2020 22:49 utc | 60
There’s certainly a pattern since the start of the End of History (1991):
1) During the two true End of History POTUSes (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton), the USA’s hegemony over the world was such that it could play cute and obey International Law and its institutions. Rhetoric was chivalrous and very considerate to the inferior countries, and wars were waged with the “consent” of the UN (e.g. Somalia). China was treated as a cute big Third World country, where American capital could be outsourced to without any major consequences. Russia was firmly under American dominance (Yeltsin frequently had to beg Bill Clinton for money on the phone) and on its knees. The only “bump” on the road in this period was the criminal destruction of Yugoslavia, which was clearly intended to do a Communist version of the “Nürnberg Trials” and thus bury socialism forever; in that, it failed. Both economic crises that happened during the period – the 1997 Asian Tigers crisis and the Dotcom Bubble burst of 2000 – were easily fended off by capitalist system, then healthy again thanks to the absorption of the surpluses of the ex-Soviet sphere;
2) The beginning of the end of the End of History, during George W. Bush’s reign (2001-2009); Bush II’s reign was marked by a much more absolutist, messianic and aggressive policy (Full Spectrum Dominance; For New American Century) and rhetoric. The USA abandoned the cordiality that marked the rhetoric of Bush I’s and Bill Clinton’s reigns and started to be much more harsh against International Law and its institutions. The break up happened in the invasion of Iraq, which the UN was against. The USA invaded another nation alone for the first time in years. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, plus the invasion of Afghanistan both happened with American troops directly. We now know Bush II also wanted to invade Venezuela, North Korea and Iran, but the Empire was already showing clear signs of exhaustion – symbolized by the meltdown of 2008, which also marked the death of neoliberalism and the end of the End of History (1991-2008).
3) The first reign of post-End of History America, with Barack Hussein Obama, a senator representing the financial sector of Chicago. He bailed out Wall Street (USD 1.1 trn) right after feigning closing Guantanamo (bait and switch tactic). But he started to pull back from Full Spectrum Dominance, by hiring mercenary groups to substitute American troops in Iraq. From now on, regime change operations would happen through color revolutions, not by direct military invasions anymore. He did it in Latin America, Ukraine, other Eastern European nations and tried to do the same with Syria – this time, with a much darker, more gruesome weapon of choice (ISIS). He also intensified the usage of drones so as to keep the troops count officially low.
4) Trump’s reign (2017-2021). Trump represents a further pull back from Full Spectrum Dominance. Now, instead of mercenary groups, he’s resorting to economic sanctions (Maximum Pressure). Some more color revolutions (Belarus, Venezuela) still happen, but they are getting scarcer. He tried and failed to pull out of Afghanistan at least three times, but peace talks with Taliban begun. He also tried to peace talk with North Korea – a nation George W. Bush tried to destroy. The pattern here is clear: instead of trying to achieve a bunch of small military victories against small countries, Trump is trying to get one big victory against one big country (the biggest): China. Make no mistake: Trump wants to murder 1.435 billion people. To achieve that, he’s trying to break MAD (Prompt Global Strike; tactical nukes; expansion of NATO; Quad talks; rapprochement with Australia) plus is trying to gain time with a series of economic sanctions and acts of piracy (ransack of TikTok). But the fact on the field remains that the Full Spectrum Dominance – once considered just a matter of time and execution – is now just a distant dream: the American alt-right (Trump’s main supporter base) is already talking on racial terms, imploring him to become an equal partner to Russia in order to annihilate China. The very fact that white supremacy was reborn in America is evidence itself of America’s relative decline, as the premise is the USA alone can’t do it anymore: it will need to ally with its “white brothers” (Russia) to win its ultimate war against the “yellows” (China).
To sum it up, we have this pattern since end of the Cold War:
USA as “hors concours” Era → Full Spectrum Dominance Era → Mercenaries Era → Maximum Pressure Era
We can thus observe a clear pattern of decline. In this sense, Bush II’s “For a New American Century” is extremely symbolic, because, at the same time, it represents the end of the de facto Full Spectrum Dominance (which already existed before his reign, just without the name) and the necessity of a presidential candidate at the time (2000) to “up the ante” on an already very high level (in fact, the highest possible for any nation-state). For a New American Century is, therefore, both an evidence of recognized decline by the American people (i.e. that the unbelievable times of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton could hardly be repeated) and a hope (false hope?) that it could, somehow, come back (even if at a slight inferior form).
Posted by: vk | Oct 9 2020 0:08 utc | 69
Heh, so many posts considering the issue of the amerikan empire’s brutality, greed and illegality in terms of amerika’s domestic politics.
IOW just more of the same old ‘we are the world’ amerikan exceptionalism which may still delude amerikans, but it doesn’t fool the other 8 billion of US – all of us who aren’t amerikan, who have absolutely had enough of this nonsense.
For the rest of the world it is a matter of complete indifference whether amerika chooses to shit or just get off the pot, still as constipated as always.
Maybe amerika can reform itself, that is doubtful to me, but maybe it can.
One thing is for sure it hardly matters cos if amerika doesn’t fix its rapacious behaviour, others will do the job.
We all know that some of the empire’s ‘decision makers’ sorta comprehend that, which is one of the reason’s why they use the MIC as a route for transferring the wealth of ordinary citizens to the mob in charge, PTB or whatever we’re currently calling ’em.
Anyway since amerika always telegraphs its punches, it is unlikely that direct conflict, no matter how hard those same P’sTB may want it, manoeuvre for it, will be the way that the rest of us force change, wars are messy and not very popular with the normal decent people who inhabit the rest of this planet, so it is more likely that, initially at least, amerika’s crimes will be stopped by the application of intense economic pressure.
It won’t happen tomorrow which may be why amerikans only look to a domestic solution.
Sure China could ‘bring the amerikan economy down’ but not only will that cause economic loss to China, it will also make it easy for the P’sTB to crank up a whaddathe arseholes call it, ‘a kinetic conflict’.
However over the next decade more & more nations will realise things aren’t what they should be as amerika’s situation worsens & so more demands are made on other states in order to keep the greedies in the manner they expect.
Those once willing allies will keep touching their forelocks to the empire while they quietly develop solidarity with all the states being callously exploited.
Not all states will behave as australia has, there are too many reasons to enumerate here, much less detail, why Australia has meekly toed the DC line whereas Aotearoa has not, after all we are pretty much the same people.
Yep we do have some tools of fukus among the political class in Aotearoa but the level of investment in taking control of Aotearoa’s pols has never come close to that which they poured into Oz.
eg in Aotearoa amerika didn’t spend billions organising a coup, they just murdered our Prime Minister, then blew less than a hundred grand interfering in the next couple of elections – mostly by paying off the news media, back then they were only a handful of ‘targets’.
It is Australia that is the outlier, not Aotearoa and I cannot see amerika investing the time and resources in developing such control over every nation that they did over Australia or the other few nations which had resources amerika just could not do without.
That is especially true when one considers that despite all that control, amerika’s greed & foolishness has caused the dichotomy among Oz’s elite, on one hand they own a mob of Oz’s pols of all persuasions but on the other hand the bulk of the Oz elite’s wealth is garnered from trade with China.
As for oil, the ‘investments’ of several million deaths in the ME hasn’t worked out great. All they really have remaining is the toxic Saudi Arabia; Iraq & Iran are gone for good plus 95% of the citizens of the ME justifiably loathe amerika with a passion.
Not what anyone would call a stable situation, eh?
amerika’s most rancid interference in the domestic politics of other nations has always been concentrated on those nations in possession of resources which amerika most wanted to steal.
As amerika’s ability to generate real wealth, I don’t mean their already overused ability to print more dollar bills, but generating items which have a real, definable & transferable wealth, declines, then so will the amerikan empire’s ability to control puppet politicians all over the planet.
The only variable is time, for me I may kark it with a smile on my face yet cos I reckon one decade, 10 years, should do it.
It isn’t if, the only question is when amerika bites the dust.
Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 9 2020 7:49 utc | 90
|
