Syria and U.S. global hegemony
16/09/2013
- Opinión
Understanding the interests of the United States in the present situation, is fundamental for coming to grips with their relations with Latin America and, in particular, Panama. The rhetoric that the government of President Barack Obama employs to "soften" the defences of Syria in the international scene is the same that the U.S. employs in its relations with the region.
In Guatemala the U.S. liquidated the democratic government of President Arbenz in 1954. A decade later they invaded the Dominican Republic to overthrow the democratic President Juan Bosch. Ten years later, in 1973, they intervened again, this time in Chile, to put an end, with a bloodbath, to the experiment in democratic government of President Allende. In the 1980s they made Central America a battlefield. In 1989 they stged a military invasion of Panama, bombarding urban communities in a way that can only be described as terrorism. In 1995 they invaded Haiti and exiled the democratically-elected President Aristide. In 2002 they headed a failed attempt to overthrow the democratic president Hugo Chávez.
All of these events had a common basis: lies. For seventy years the United States has deployed military power to impose themselves over any adversary.
For over ten years they have erected a castle of lies with respect to the reality of arab peoples in order to paint them as evil. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan (not an Arab country) unleashed in 2001 was preceded by a campaign to transform the taliban (students of the Quran) into terrorists. A little later the United States invaded Iraq in order to occupy the oil fields. In 2011 they invaded Libya and assassinated Ghadafi.
In the case of the countries of the Middle East the onslaught of the United States has taken place in the framework of a redefinition of the correlation of forces on a global scale. Washington is aware of the problems for their global strategy arising from the vacuum left by the Soviet Union, the emergence of China, and the decline of Europe.
They must also face the consolidation of Iran, the permanent instability created by Israeli politics in the region and the weakening of governments close to the United States such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Some ten years ago the "American century" project was launched. This involved making the United States the only hegemonic world power in the twenty-first century. To realize this plan, they proposed to contain China and subordinate the rich oil fields of the Middle East. The new rhetoric presented the "Islamic" peoples as the enemies of the twenty-first century.
The military objective is to destabilize the countries of the arab region and to rebuild them in accord with their own vision of the world. This geopolitical change would allow them to push China into a corner as China has already become a country dependent on the importation of energy supplies (oil). Building on campaigns based on lies, but repeated incessantly, the United States have managed to introduce in the minds of most peoples serious doubts with respect to the intentions of the White House.
In the case of Syria, Washington has painted as inevitable the bombardment and destruction of Syria (as was the case with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) to punish the Syrian government for the deployment of chemical weapons. According to President Al-Assad "we have challenged the accusers to provide even a hint of legitimate proof, something that they have not been able to do...We have challenged them to show proofs not to us, but to their own public opinion."
Russia was apparently able to come up with a last minute diplomatic triumph, postponing a military attack on the part of the U.S. that had been programmed for this week. However, to back off at this time would be for the U.S. to delay the implementation of their principal objective, which is to establish a Middle East that would be an unconditional ally in their struggle against Iran, and afterwards, against China. Moreover, the most aggressive advisors (the "hawks") surrounding Obama are aware that the window of opportunity for the "American Century" may in fact be closing. Meanwhile the more moderate elements ("doves") in the U.S. insist that their objectives (not losing global hegemony) can be achieved without invading Syria. This division which is like that produced during the Bush regime a decade ago, has been shaken by the rise of the so-called fundamentalists of the extreme right (members of the Tea Party) who are opposed to the war-making policies of Obama. This sector insists that the Nobel Peace Laureate, Barack Obama, is incapable of leading the United States in war and that he should abstain from involving the United States in military adventures in the Middle East.
According to Hans von Sponeck, former undersecretary of the UN, "The U.S. has no real proof that the Syrian government has employed chemical weapons". He adds that even if proof is forthcoming, "we must be skeptical, recalling the many false or fabricated incidents that were created to justify previous wars: the incident of Tonkin Gulf in Vietnam, the Gulf war, the Racak massacre (in Kosovo), the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the threats of massacre in Bengazi, Libia."
In Guatemala the U.S. liquidated the democratic government of President Arbenz in 1954. A decade later they invaded the Dominican Republic to overthrow the democratic President Juan Bosch. Ten years later, in 1973, they intervened again, this time in Chile, to put an end, with a bloodbath, to the experiment in democratic government of President Allende. In the 1980s they made Central America a battlefield. In 1989 they stged a military invasion of Panama, bombarding urban communities in a way that can only be described as terrorism. In 1995 they invaded Haiti and exiled the democratically-elected President Aristide. In 2002 they headed a failed attempt to overthrow the democratic president Hugo Chávez.
All of these events had a common basis: lies. For seventy years the United States has deployed military power to impose themselves over any adversary.
For over ten years they have erected a castle of lies with respect to the reality of arab peoples in order to paint them as evil. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan (not an Arab country) unleashed in 2001 was preceded by a campaign to transform the taliban (students of the Quran) into terrorists. A little later the United States invaded Iraq in order to occupy the oil fields. In 2011 they invaded Libya and assassinated Ghadafi.
In the case of the countries of the Middle East the onslaught of the United States has taken place in the framework of a redefinition of the correlation of forces on a global scale. Washington is aware of the problems for their global strategy arising from the vacuum left by the Soviet Union, the emergence of China, and the decline of Europe.
They must also face the consolidation of Iran, the permanent instability created by Israeli politics in the region and the weakening of governments close to the United States such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Some ten years ago the "American century" project was launched. This involved making the United States the only hegemonic world power in the twenty-first century. To realize this plan, they proposed to contain China and subordinate the rich oil fields of the Middle East. The new rhetoric presented the "Islamic" peoples as the enemies of the twenty-first century.
The military objective is to destabilize the countries of the arab region and to rebuild them in accord with their own vision of the world. This geopolitical change would allow them to push China into a corner as China has already become a country dependent on the importation of energy supplies (oil). Building on campaigns based on lies, but repeated incessantly, the United States have managed to introduce in the minds of most peoples serious doubts with respect to the intentions of the White House.
In the case of Syria, Washington has painted as inevitable the bombardment and destruction of Syria (as was the case with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) to punish the Syrian government for the deployment of chemical weapons. According to President Al-Assad "we have challenged the accusers to provide even a hint of legitimate proof, something that they have not been able to do...We have challenged them to show proofs not to us, but to their own public opinion."
Russia was apparently able to come up with a last minute diplomatic triumph, postponing a military attack on the part of the U.S. that had been programmed for this week. However, to back off at this time would be for the U.S. to delay the implementation of their principal objective, which is to establish a Middle East that would be an unconditional ally in their struggle against Iran, and afterwards, against China. Moreover, the most aggressive advisors (the "hawks") surrounding Obama are aware that the window of opportunity for the "American Century" may in fact be closing. Meanwhile the more moderate elements ("doves") in the U.S. insist that their objectives (not losing global hegemony) can be achieved without invading Syria. This division which is like that produced during the Bush regime a decade ago, has been shaken by the rise of the so-called fundamentalists of the extreme right (members of the Tea Party) who are opposed to the war-making policies of Obama. This sector insists that the Nobel Peace Laureate, Barack Obama, is incapable of leading the United States in war and that he should abstain from involving the United States in military adventures in the Middle East.
According to Hans von Sponeck, former undersecretary of the UN, "The U.S. has no real proof that the Syrian government has employed chemical weapons". He adds that even if proof is forthcoming, "we must be skeptical, recalling the many false or fabricated incidents that were created to justify previous wars: the incident of Tonkin Gulf in Vietnam, the Gulf war, the Racak massacre (in Kosovo), the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the threats of massacre in Bengazi, Libia."
(Translation: Jordan Bishop).
-- Marco A. Gandásegui, Jr. is professor of Sociology at the University of Panama and researcher with the Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos Justo Arosemena (CELA) http://marcoagandasegui11.blogspot.com
-- Marco A. Gandásegui, Jr. is professor of Sociology at the University of Panama and researcher with the Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos Justo Arosemena (CELA) http://marcoagandasegui11.blogspot.com
https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/79365?language=en
Del mismo autor
- Syria and U.S. global hegemony 16/09/2013
Clasificado en
Clasificado en:
Guerra y Paz
- Prabir Purkayastha 08/04/2022
- Prabir Purkayastha 08/04/2022
- Adolfo Pérez Esquivel 06/04/2022
- Adolfo Pérez Esquivel 05/04/2022
- Vijay Prashad 04/04/2022
