What will the US foreign policy be tomorrow ?

[Michel Collon <michel.collon at skynet.be>]

What will the US foreign policy
be tomorrow ?

MICHEL COLLON

When Bush goes, everyone will be hoping for a change - or fearing the
worst. McCain or Obama ? What will that change for Iraq, Afghanistan,
Palestine, Africa, Caucasia, Cuba and Venezuela ? And for US relationships
with the big powers : Europe, Japan, Russia, China ?

We don't believe that US foreign policy is decided at the White House. In
fact, at the moment the US elite is hesitating about the strategy to follow
in the coming years. This text analyzes the two possible options. The
question of how does United States think to remain the super power
dominating the world becomes even more burning in view of the economic
crisis.

This text is extracted from our book « The 7 sins of Hugo Chávez » (Chapter
11 : [The United States] Black gold and the wars of tomorrow), shortly to
be published. The preceding pages explained the reason for the rise and
then decline of the United States. Investig'Action felt it was urgent to
publish this extract to shed more light on the discussions under way during
the elections in the United States of America.


Bush's Failure

What would be the balance sheet of this global war on terror led by the
Bush administration as from 11 September ? Negative. Virtually everywhere.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has launched two wars which they
are unable to win and which they will never win. Bush wanted to launch a
third war against Iran but, the US being seriously weakened, he has had to
renounce it. The aim of this war was to have been to ensure Washington's
control over oil. In five years, it has risen from 25 dollars to over 100
dollars [per barrel], with very negative consequences for the US and world
economy.

In South America, the United States has lost, entirely or partially,
control over almost all their colonies : Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. All that remains to them, at the
time of writing, are Peru, Chile and Colombia.

In Africa, too, resistance has made some advances. Kabila of the Congo
refused to go on his knees. And when Washington tried to find somewhere to
set up their new military command, AFRICOM, all countries politely refused.

Also in South Asia, there has been an increase in resistance over the whole
region which has alarmed US strategists, who propose reinforcing the US's
'projection capacity' in South Asia. In their jargon, that means organizing
military landings and bombardments, and supporting « coups d'etat ». But
the group emphasize that, given the unpopularity of the United States in
this region it will be impossible to find a country that will accept the
headquarters of such a US force.

Bush's policy has aroused resistance even among their European allies.
Thus, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, George Bush demanded
further expansion of the organization, this time to integrate Ukraine and
George - which was like pointing a couple of cannons at Russia. But there
were firm and open refusals from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium,
the Netherlands and Luxemburg, none of them wishing to make troubles with
Moscow which provides them with gas. Steve Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers,
two analysts close to the Pentagon, saw in this « a manifest failure of US
policy in an alliance normally dominated by Washington ».

Indeed Russia's attitude is hardening. Moscow rejects the installation on
the European continent of arms that the United States call an anti-missile
shield :
« If part of the US nuclear potential is in Europe (...) we have to have
targets in Europe .» Moreover, in May 2008, Russia tested a new, multi-head
intercontinental missile « in response to unilateral and groundless acts by
our partners » declared Putin. Washington however stated that the
anti-missile shield was not directed against Russia, only against states
like Iran. But Putin replied : « There is no Iranian missile that has a
sufficient range. It is therefore evident that this news concerns us
Russians too . »

Like Russia, China has also refused to back down when confronted by
numerous campaigns and pressures exercised by Washington.


The US elite is divided

Ten years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to
President Carter and the leading strategist in the United States, published
his book « The Great Chessboard ». More or less « How to remain the
superpower dominating the world » . He explained, with the brutal frankness
of someone no longer in official position, that Washington must absolutely
weaken its rivals : Russia and China, but also Europe and Japan, and
prevent them from allying with each other. Divide and rule.

Today, what is the balance sheet from George Bush using Brzezinski'
criteria ? Has he managed to weaken the great power rivals ? We would say :
fairly well as concerns Japan, fairly well (for the moment) as concerns
Europe, but badly as concerns Russia and very badly as concerns China.

Globally, Bush has provoked so much resistance that United States'
domination has been weakened. The business interests that had brought him
to power - armaments, oil, automobiles, defence, pharmaceutical companies -
have seen that Bush's wars have not brought great profits, or new areas for
exploitation. In fact, they have cost more than they have gained. And the
Bush administration has been shown up as being a small, restricted circle
whose members thought a lot about filling their own pockets but who were
incable of tactical finesse and genuine long-term vision.

Once the failure had become obvious, the divisions among the US elite, and
even in the Bush administration, became exacerbated. As from 2006 the
neocons had to cede territory. They had to accept replacing the War
Minister, Donald Rumsfeld, by Robert Gates, a Trilateral man belonging to
the Brzezinski tendency. The new minister had to some extent admitted the
weakness of US militarism in a speech he gave to the cadets at the West
Point Military Academy : « Don't fight unless you have to. Never fight
alone. And don't fight for long. » Then the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton
Commission condemned the effort of Bush to reshape the 'Great Middle East'
as being unrealistic. They advocated, on the contrary, a more tactical
approach towards Syria and Iran.

Even within the secret services and the army there are a number of revolts.
In December 2007, when Bush wanted to prepare an attack against Iran under
the classic pretext of it having weapons of mass destruction, sixteen US
intelligence services surprised everyone by publishing a report stating
that Iran had suspended its military nuclear programme since at least 2003.

« The decline of the United States is inevitable »
(Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Brzezinski, in his book, proposed an agressive and machiavellian strategy
to save the US Empire. But even he, did he really believe it would work ?
Strange as it may seem, it appears not.

« In the long term, global politics are destined to become less and less
favourable to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of only one
state. America is thus not only the first global super power, it is very
probably the last one. » (CH - p. 267)

The reason for this is the evolution of the economy : « Economic power also
risks becoming dispersed. In the coming years, no country will be likely to
attain some 30 per cent of the world GNP, a figure that the United States
has maintained during most of the 20th century - not to mention the high
point of 50 per cent that they reached in 1945. According to certain
estimates, America could still hold 20 per cent of the world GNP at the end
of this decade, which would then fall to 10 - 15 per cent from now to the
year 2020. The figures for other powers - Europe, China, Japan - are
expected to increase to reach the approximate level of the United States
... Once the decline of the American leadership has set in, the supremacy
that the country now enjoys cannot be taken over by any single state. » (CH
- p. 267-8)

« Once the decline of the American leadership has set in ». Brzezinski is
therefore not talking about a possibility, but a certitude. He wrote that
in 1997. Today it has become clear that the decline is well on its way. The
world is becoming multipolar.

But perhaps Brzezinski is an isolated pessimist ? Perhaps the neocons who
inspired Bush are more 'optimist', if one can use that word ? In fact, they
are not much more optimistic. In the founding text of the administration's
whole policy, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), drawn up in
1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and his friends, the whole ideology of a new
militarist crusade is evident, but there is also a remark worthy of note :
« At the moment, the United States has no world rival. The overall strategy
of America must aim at preserving and extending this advantageous position
as long as possible (...) Preserving this desirable strategic situation in
which the United States finds itself at the present time requires
predominant military capacities at the world level. » (CH)

« As long as possible » : here, too, there is no belief that the United
States can remain the masters of the world for ever. It is a real paradox.
The whole world fears the United States. But the rulers of the country
themselves know that they are at the controls of the Titanic. And to save
the Empire as long as possible, they are divided between two options.


Two options for saving the Empire

What will be the foreign policy of the United States in the years to come ?
The choice of president will certainly give some idea. But it is not
decisive. We should remember that, during the presidential campaign of
2000, George Bush had promised a much milder foreign policy and less
interventionist than its precedessor ! And the other candidate, Al Gore,
had proposed a bigger military budget than that of Bush. We believe that
the general orientations of foreign policy are not decided by presidents
but by the multinationals, in function of their requirements of the moment
and their evaluation of world power relationships.

And, in fact, after the balance sheet of the Bush years that we have just
described, the US elite seems quite divided about the line to follow. How
to resolve this delicate situation ?

The first possible option is the military one. Bush's neocons embodied this
the last few years with the Wolfowitz strategy, one of aggression and
intimidation. Multiply the wars, inflate to the maximum the orders to the
military-industrial complex to promote growth and the domination of the US
multinationals, and also to intimidate allies and rivals.

The other option, which is defended by Brzezinski, is what he likes to call
'soft power'. Others call it 'intelligent imperialism'. In fact it aims at
the same objectives, but through forms of violence that are less direct,
less visible. It would count less on very expensive US military
interventions and more on secret services, destabilization manoeuvres and
proxy wars, as well as corruption.


Five NATO generals prepare a world government ...

The first option consists of militarizing political life still further and
increasing the number of wars. Bush squared, in fact.

In January 2008, five former NATO generals presented a preparatory document
for the NATO summit meeting at Bucharest. Their proposals reflect a
terrifying tendency. And what gives weight to their document is that, up
until recently, all of them held very high positions. General John
Shalikashvili was US Chief of Staff and Commander in Chief of NATO in
Europe, General Klaus Naumann ran the German army and was president of the
military committe of NATO in Europe, General Henk van den Breemen was chief
of the Dutch Chief of Staff and Admiral Jacques Lanxade held the same post
in France, while Lord Inge ran the General Staff and was also Chief of the
Defence Staff of Great Britain. This is just the big shots - and very
aggressive they are too, as we shall see.

Page 6 : « [The authors] propose ways how to overcome possible rivalry with
the EU and also how to enable NATO to have access to non-military
instruments. » Two observations :

	in fact, this rivalry is not only possible, it is completely real.
In what way do they want to overcome it ?;
·	what does NATO mean by having « access to non-military instruments » ?
Is it a question of having more control over civil society in western
countries ?

Page 7 : « In order to start off the process, they propose establishing a
directorate bringing together the United States, the European Union and
NATO. Its mission would be to coordinate all operations in the Atlantic
sphere. » For what objectives ?

The Five explain this on page 42 : « What the Western allies expect is the
pro-active defence of their societies and their way of life maintaind over
the long term. »
« Defending our way of life » has already been used as an argument by Bush
senior to launch the first war against Iraq. In fact, « way of life » is a
hypocritical term that means the domination of the multinationals over
economic life : it is a domination that keeps half of humanity in poverty.
The aim of the Five is in fact to use military means to maintain the gap
between the rich and the poor. Anyone who doubts this should read, on page
92 : « The objectives of our strategy are to preserve the peace, our
values, economic liberalism and stability. »

It is, therefore, to preserve the stability of the multinationals. Against
what enemies ? The authors give some examples of what is not to be
tolerated in the Third World. Page 52 : « We have less important examples
of non-desirable aid, from Venezuela to the Cuban regime. » The world
gendarme takes upon itself the right to intervene everywhere against
countries that do things that the multinationals don't like.

But among the undesirables, who is the main enemy ? The answer is on page 44 :
« China is in a situation to wreak great harm on the US and the world
economies, based on its enormous reserves in dollars. » And, on page 52 : «
China is in a position to use finance to impose itself on Africa and
acquire the capacity to utilize it on a much greater scale - if it so
decides. »

So here we have, well-defined, the good and the bad. Liberalism needs NATO
to impose itself on the whole world. And to carry out this economic war,
what means does NATO require ?


International law and the United Nations thrown overboard

In fact, the five generals feel frustrated. On page 76 : « One of the chief
problems in the current strategic conception of the Atlantic alliance is
that its actions remain reactive rather than preventive, and are limited to
military means. On page 91 : « An ambitious strategy must include the
well-integrated use of all accessible means, political, economic, military,
cultural, social, moral, spiritual and psychological. »

So there we are ! The Gang of Five wants to move beyond its military tasks
and exercise control over the functioning of civil society. But will the
law be respected at least by this new world government ? It is very
doubtful. On pages 94-95 : « Another principle to be respected is legality.
All action must be legitimate, authorized and respect international law.
That can be a considerable handicap when the adversary has no respect at
all for any law whatsoever, but to act differently would mean, in the end,
applying the law of the jungle and undermine our own credibility.
Nevertheless this principle does not prevent adapting existing
international law in an international context that is constant evolution. »

In this quote, the first sentences serve as window dressing and the real
content comes at the end. « Adapting » the law means, in effect, violating
it, denying the principles proclaimed up until now. After Abu Ghraib,
Guantánamo, torture, the assassination of heads of states, the
extraordinary rendition flights and secret prisons of the CIA : are they
proposing to combat these violations of the law ? No, they propose to
legalize them, 'adapting' the law.

Already two wars against Iraq and the one against Yugoslavia have violated
international law, the UN Charter and even NATO's own Charter. But it is
precisely international legality that the Five want to get rid of. Pages
104-105 : « The approval of the United Nations may not be necessary
according to Article 51 of the UN Charter (legitimate defence) and it is
perhaps possible to renounce it on the basis of the Convention on Genocide.
»


« Long live preventive war ! » Even if it is nuclear.

Page 96 makes for reading that is just as disturbing : « What we need is a
form of dissuasion through pro-active refusal, in which the preemption is a
form of imminent reaction and prevention an attempt to take back the
initiative and put an end to the conflict. »

« Pro-active defence » in military jargon, means preventive war. The term
is constantly repeated in the document of the Five. George W. Bush had
already invoked a 'preventive war' against terrorism. As did Hitler in his
time. Aggressors often take refuge in the pretext of preventing danger. In
actual fact, international law explicitly forbids wars claiming to be
preventive.

But our fears don't end there. On page 94 : « At first sight, the nuclear
weapon might seem disproportionate, but if one takes into account the
damage that it prevents, it may be reasonable. » Here the immorality of
these five Gangits bursts out into the open. Nuclear war is an atrocity and
humanity has constantly demanded the dismantling of weapons of mass
destruction. Here it is claimed that they are justified. The hypocrisy is
flagrant : « to prevent damage ». This is completely vague and, without
doubt, racist. The lives of adversary peoples are not worth anything.

The truth is that these criminal generals, observing that classic
bombardments are not enough to break resistance, and that wars on land are
expensive and dangerous for the invaders, propose the nuclear weapon as a
solution to the problem of the world hegemony of the multinationals.


Preparing peoples' minds

As can be seen, the goods that the Gang of Five wish to sell us are
completely rotten and poisonous. This is the reason why they count on
manipulating public opinion through long-term propaganda campaigns. On page
104 : « These measures must be accompnied by pro-active and coordinated
efforts of communication through the media (,,,) Furthermore, such a media
campaign can prepare peoples' minds for an armed intervention. »

« Prepare peoples' minds » ! Of course, this is nothing new. Drawing up the
balance sheet of the war against Yugoslavia, which was the most successful
example of organized disinformation, a NATO general admitted, after the war
ended, that false information had been systematically issued while
embarrassing information was eliminated or marginalized in order to «
anaesthetize opinions ». He thus acted upon NATO's philosophy that «
Opinion can be worked upon, like other things. » In each war, Western
generals commission spin doctors to sell their war and manipulate public
opinion. But this time, this is taken much further : there is to be a
long-term campaign to condition opinion.

Page 129 : « Therefore NATO must develop an information strategy that
serves three objectives simultaneously. It must persuade the world that
NATO is a force for good. It must move before its adversaries start to
disseminate their information : that is, NATO must impose its domination in
public relations. It must win the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of
the NATO countries (convince them that the Atlantic alliance's position is
a correct one), but also the hearts and minds of the populations where the
armed intervention is taking place. »

« Impose its domination in public relations .» Information is seen as a war
that is won by eliminating the forces of the adversary. This is no idle
accusation. The US army bombed and imprisoned Al Jazeera journalists, NATO
bombed Belgrade television station (17 killed), the Pentagon has prepared
plans to eliminate embarrassing information on the Internet, whose
democratic character is upsetting it considerably.


A plan for world dictatorship

At the beginning of their document, the five generals announced « ways how
to overcome possible rivalry with the EU » How are they going to do that ?
In effect, they use the framework of NATO to organize the submission of the
EU to Washington's will :

Page 137 : « We consider that multinational forces are the key for a rapid
and inexpensive modernization of NATO's force, but we stress that this is
not possible unless member states accept without reserve that these forces
will be at the disposal of NATO for all operations authorized by the NATO
Council. » Translation : the European armies will be obliged to obey NATO
decisions (currently unanimity is required).

The Five's plan would give three advantages to the United States : it would
integrate European forces into their own wars ; it would share the costs
among the allies ; and it would also share the unpopularity.

The antidemocratic character of the Five is shown clearly on page 139 : «
We are not formulating proposals for the reform of the EU in such detail as
we have for NATO for two reasons : first, a new 'smooth' treaty, that has
just replaced the 'constitution' that had been condemned, has now been
adopted so as to avoid consulting the populations. »

Their plan will make it impossible to carry out any opposition. Page 144 :
« In order to avoid all sources of inconvenience, it could be decided that
first of all an issue will be treated inside NATO and then the NATO members
who are also members of the EU will undertake not to depart from the vote
taken at NATO when the issue is brought up in the European bodies. » Thus,
once NATO has decided, no European country will have the right to oppose
its decision.

In conclusion, this plan of the Gang of Five, prepared by people who have
been at the top of world military power, exposes a significant tendency
among the elite. Their plan for a super world government by the three blocs
(effectively dominated by the United States) would relegate all vestiges of
international law to the dustbin, legitimize preventive war and nuclear
weapons andorganize systematic manipulation of public opinion. The plan is
nothing if not fascist.

This is one of the two options that the elite in the United States are
currently considering for resolving their problems. The other is embodied
by Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom we spoke about earlier.


« Intelligent imperialism » ?

The US military strategists distinguish three types of war that they could
launch :
high intensity wars between big powers such as the two world wars ; medium
intensity wars involving also the US military directly, but against much
weaker powers, as in Iraq and Yugoslavia ; low-intensity wars, in which
there is not a direct US military involvement but which are organized to
defeat others. They provoke conflicts between neighbouring countries, or
through paramilitary and terrrorist movements.

The term 'low intensity' is misleading, as it could give the impression
that there are fewer damages. In fact there are fewer only for the United
States. Thus the so-called « low intensity » war that Washington launched
against the Congo (through the armies of neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda,
and various militias) resulted in five million deaths and it has paralyzed
the development of the Congo.

Brzezinski's strategy is different from that of Bush in that it favours
low-intensity wars. In no way, therefore, is it more moral, but it claims
to being more intelligent.

But Brzezinski also proposes other forms of intervention. We often think of
military intervention by the United States as the most visible form of
aggression. But in fact they dispose of a wide range of forms of
aggression.. To establish a complete typology, it would look like this, in
order of ascending intensity :

	corruption of local leaders ;
·	blackmail of local leaders ;
·	demonization media campaigns ;
·	various destabilization actions ;
·	embargos and commercial blockades ;
·	coups d'état ;
·	provoking separatist movements ;
·	war by proxy ;
·	bombardments ;
·	territorial occupation.
As can be seen there is a wide variety of methods which, evidently, can be
combined. But they are all aggressions. Of course all US governments have
had recourse to all these methods, and not only certain ones. But the
dosage and financing vary.

After the crimes committed by Bush, it is tempting to think that there will
be a change of method. However, if Washington decides to changes its
tactics they will not be more pacific but only less visible. Brzezinski, it
should be remembered, was the man who financed bin Laden in Afghanistan to
tie the Soviet Union down in a long and costly war and to break its
alliance with the Muslim world. Brzezinski is very proud of his success and
never loses an opportunity to refer to it.

If the United States decide to apply the Brezinski strategy there will
certainly be fewer direct wars. And they will be carried out as often as
possible in conjunction with allies. This will help to take care of their
media image and the manipulation of the public. And above all the CIA will
be more active : efforts will be made to replace wars carried out directly
by the United States by indirect wars, making neighbouring countries fight
each other, supporting 'the good war' and using all kinds of appropriate
pretexts. This was the method used successfully by Clinton against
Yugoslavia.

The Brzezinski method has two advantages for the United States. They would
regain a more presentable image and re-establish their moral authority. And
by paying less money to the military-industrial complex the US economy
would reinforce its competitive position vis-à-vis Europe, China, India, etc.

In order to economize on wars the Brzezinski strategy would make more use
of blackmail as well as of clandestine activities. Blackmail, especially,
can be channelled through world economic organizations like the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. These are
multilateral institutions but dominated by the United States, who can
dictate their wishes for the Third World in an apparently more objective
manner. But this will not be easy because the World Bank and the IMF have
created such antagonism among the countries they have dealt with that the
latter are looking for alternatives. The idea of a Bank of the South,
launched by Chávez is making progress ...

More use would also be made of clandestine activities - in other words, the
CIA. This makes it possible to get rid of obstreperous governments at a
lower cost.

That is why those who support Brzezinski's strategy call themselves
partisans of 'soft power' or 'intelligent imperialism'. But the danger with
this soft power is that the Left will be so glad that Bush has gone that
they will reduce their vigilance because - for a certain time - there will
be fewer direct wars. Thus the international anti-war movement, which is
going through an evident crisis, will react even less strongly when
confronted by the more discreet strategies of the Empire.

At any rate, the Empire will not become more peaceful. Sooner or later it
will launch more Bush-type wars. This is because the US elite in fact
practise the two options alternately.


Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain

These two options, militarist or 'intelligent' are not new. And it is not a
question of the opposition between republicans and democrats. These two
parties do not represent 'war' or 'peace' but only different electorates,
different tactics, and are always at the service of the multinationals.
Hence it is not a republican but a democrat, Harry Truman, who launched the
war in 1950 against Korea and China. It was not a republican, but a
democrat, John Kennedy, who started the war against Vietnam in 1961.

And it is not a popular vote either, against the bourgeois vote. The US
multinationals always finance both candidates, putting their eggs in both
baskets. But their preferences can be judged by the amounts they
contribute. At the beginning of the 1990s the multinationals invested in
both candidates, but gave 59 pour cent more to Clinton and the democrats.
Instead, from 1996 onwards they gave greater support to the republicans by
67 per cent. In the presidential elections of 2000 it was Bush who was
massively financed. And he was declared elected in spite of the fact that
the ballots had given his rival Gore the victory. On the other hand, in the
presidential elections of 2008 the multinationals have changed sides again
and finance Obama more than his rival McCain.

However, the same president can change his own policy. After the fall of
the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Bill Clinton reduced the
military budget and the orders to the military-industrial complex - for a
while. By so doing, he had hoped to relaunch the US economic machine in
general. But, although the decision was almost unnoticed, at the end of his
mandate the same Clinton made a U-turn : « The military budget of the
United States must be increased by 70 per cent. » This just confirms what
was said previously : the great political decisions do not depend on the
character of one president or another, but on strategies decided higher up.
Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain.


US policy alternates its methods

So we shall talk about alternative US policies. After each important
setback, there is a - temporary - return to 'soft power'.

After the defeat of Vietnam and the moral condemnation of the dictatorships
installed by Washington in Latin America, the US multinationals brought the
nice pastor Jimmy Carter to power, with his wonderful speeches on human
rights. After the Cold War and the first war against Iraq, President
Clinton tried to involve the Europeans in his wars and gave special
attention to media presentation. In fact, the US bourgeoisie was in fact
always hesitating between the two options to solve its problems. Or,
rather, it alternated between them : a bit more stick, a bit more carrot.
But its choices became increasingly difficult. Neither method really solved
the problems.

Now, after the disastrous results of the Bush regime, the US bourgeoisie is
hesitating between the two options. Either the headlong plunge into more
wars or a tactical withdrawal, moving back in order to get a better run-up.
The question is not what president they are going to choose, but rather
what strategy.

At all events, it is not sure that the Brzezinski strategy is, when all's
said and done, less brutal than that of Bush. It is true that in 2008 he
publicly criticized the president, saying that he was stupid to want to
attack Iran, because he could not win and that a war would harm the
situation of Israel and affect the price of oil, hence the US economy.
Certain analysts think that Brzezinski wants to domesticate Iran because he
hopes to turn the country around and make it participate one day in the
encirclement of Russia. This is the power that remains his bête noire, the
obsession of the author of The Great Chessboard. Some think that Brzezinski
wants to completely encircle and weaken Russia, if not to wage war on it,
and we should not forget China, which has obviously become a major target
now. If this should happen, soft power will be transformed into Apocalypse
Now.


Their solutions will only exacerbate the problems

That the US bourgeoisie is divided about which line to follow stems from
the fact that, in the final analysis, the United States are not so powerful
as is believed, neither in the economic field, nor in the military. Each
time that the rulers thought they had found the solution, it turned out,
after a while, that the solution only made things worse.

For example, in the 1980s, in order to escape recession, the US
multinationals fell upon Latin America and other regions of the Third
World, gobbling up their raw materials, their businesses and their markets.
But this neoliberal offensive so impoverished these countries, provoking
economic catastrophes and hence increasing resistance that Latin America
turned to the left. From 1989 Washington launched a global war to ensure
its total control over oil. But oil continues to escape it. As from 2001
Bush launched his war against the so-called Evil Axis, but only succeeded
in strengthening resistance in all regions of the world.

The United States seem to be very strong, but are they really so ? With all
their dollars, all their technologies and all their crimes, they have lost
the war in Korea (1950) and the war in Vietnam (1961-1975), they have had
to withdraw from Lebanon (1982) and from Somalia (1993). They would not
have won in Yugoslavia (1999) if President Milosevic had accepted a land
war. They have already lost in Iraq and in Afghanistan, even if they do not
yet recognize the fact. Are they not a 'paper tiger' ? In the long run,
aren't people who defend their wealth and their future stronger than
dollars and missiles ?

The United States spend far more on their military budget than all the
other nations of the world together but that no longer succeeds in ensuring
their world supremacy. One might say that they are their own victims of
their fundamental contradiction : everything that they do is against the
interests of the immense majority of the inhabitants of the planet, so they
themselves create the force that will destroy them.

An army cannot be stronger than the economy that finances it. And the basic
weakness that will prevent the US rulers from attaining their objctive is
that the US economy is sawing the branch on which it is sitting. By
underpaying its workers, by delocalizing part of its production, by ruining
the countries of the Third World that should be its partners it is
ceaselessly impoverishing those to whom it should be selling. This problem
cannot be resolved by either of the two options, the militarist or the
'intelligent' one. The militarists increase the expenditure and the
resistance.
The 'intelligent'option, while reducing the terror disseminated by direct
warfare, also encourages resistance.

Whatever tactics are chosen the United States will continue to wage war
throughout the world in order to impose their economic system and their
interests. It is urgent to recreate a strong peace movement and for
peoples' sovereignty.

1 September 2008

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The links between the economy and the war are analyzed in the book Bush le
cyclone : <http://www.michelcollon.info/bush_le_cyclone.php>Bush le cyclone
(in French and Spanish). This book is particularly concerned with the
question 'Who commands Bush ?' And, therefore, the next President.

These questions will also be tackled at the next seminar organized by
Investig'Action in Brussels (in French) on 8-9 November. For information :
magali.investigaction at gmail.com

Other articles on the foreign policy of the United States, Russia, China,
the European Union, Iraq, Afghanistan, Brzezinski, Obama (in French) :
<http://www.michelcollon.info/index.php>: