http://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-trust-now-shattered-russia-u-s-world-annihilation-threatened/2/
Paul Craig Roberts: World Annihilation Threatened – Trust Now Shattered Between Russia And U.S.
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 modern 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 to 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
Archilles 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.http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment