The fall of the Soviet Union handed the U.S. a unique opportunity, as the surviving superpower, to lead the world toward a period of greater cooperation and conflict resolution through the use of diplomacy, global organization, and international law. This great opportunity to change US foreign policy doctrine was completely squandered by successive US presidents, who chose "the stick above the carrot" and consequently making the world a more dangerous place today.
The differences between the foreign policies of the EU, based on cooperation, trade , the environment,and Human Rights, and that of the United States became especially aparent during the Trump Administration, when Europe started staking out separate, clashing positions, on everything, from telecommunications to energy. The EU and US both issued sharp disagreements on the basic building blocks of foreign relations—namely, how the international system should work. French President Emmanuel Macron seized the spotlight, and sent the hearts of European federalists aflutter, by calling for “a European way” while raising the possibility of a French-led European nuclear deterrent, a precondition for any true independence from the United States.
If opinion polls are to go by, we are already separated. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in Germany, the most important country in Europe. In January, Pew Research released a poll showing that 57 percent of Germans hold an outright unfavorable view of the United States. A few months earlier, in September, the European Council on Foreign Relations reported that 70 percent of Germans want their country to remain neutral in any conflict between Moscow and Washington.
For some European, Anglo-Saxon capitalism is seen as ruthless and rootless, mowing down the social order in the service of individual greed. For others, the United States’ dominance of the West breeds resentment, especially in an era of globalization, when even the slightest shocks from across the Atlantic hit the EU's bottom line or derail its diplomacy.
With the US Biden Administration in charge soon, the overall relationship between the two Transatlanic Super Power partners certainly will get off to a better start, but the US administration must certainly not expect that the status quo is re-established. Take note America, your former "lap dog" now considers itself an independent partner with its own voice.
EU-Digest
Showing posts with label US Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Foreign Policy. Show all posts
1/2/21
11/9/18
Saudi Arabia - US involvement - US foreign policy: US Drones and the Khashoggi Murder - by Michael J. Brenner
In Washington, there is not much mystery about Mohammed bin-Salman’s
(=MBS) behavior. He is an ego-maniac, somewhat unhinged. He is drunk
with power and accustomed to torture and kill at whim.
His campaign of annihilation against the Houthis of Yemen indicates the depths of his depravity and the scope of his ambition.
So, too, did his imprisoning of 400 wealthy Saudis in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton where they were physically abused until they coughed up their riches for his personal use (e.g., spending $500 million for a mislabeled “Leonardo” painting). MBS thus presents a good imitation of Caligula and Nero.
So, too, did his kidnapping and physical abuse of the Prime Minister of Lebanon (Saad Hariri) – who owed MBS money and, therefore, political fealty.
In these ruthless ventures, he has been encouraged by the American government. The Saudi bombing of Yemen to smithereens, literally, could not happen physically without the active participation of the Pentagon.
The U.S. military flies the refueling planes without which MBS’s air force could not reach their targets in Yemen on two-way missions. It also provides the detailed electronic Intelligence critical to the mission.
Never mind that U.S. military personnel sit in the very command rooms from which the operations are conducted. In addition, Washington provides unqualified diplomatic cover and justification.
This is not only the Trump Administrations doing, but this Yemen “policy” was inaugurated by Barack Obama and was then continued by Trump. In legal terms, we — the United States — are an accessory before, during and after the fact of MBS’ crimes in Yemen.
The United States’s main responsibility lies in helping instill MBS’s deep sense of impunity. In addition, we encouraged the Saudi alliance with Israel. This gave MBS further confidence that active lobbying in Washington and the media would insulate him from any retribution.
Hence, feeling that he protected all his relevant flanks properly, he is now furious that some people in the West (not including the White House) are making such a fuss over the pedestrian act of whacking an annoying critic.
Furthermore, from the Saudi crown prince’s perspective, the United States has set the relevant precedent for the assassination of political enemies. Witness the US program of drone killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Chad and a number of other countries.
It is hard to deny that, via its drone strike “policy,” the U.S. government has gone a long way toward establishing the de facto legitimacy of extra-judicial murder as a standard combat tactic.
In the United States, this approach is accepted as such. Since targeted assassination involves no U.S. casualties, it makes the prosecution of war more palatable to the U.S. public. That is why is now an integral part of the playbook.
The chain of “command” is as follows: The Israelis inaugurated it. We Americans refined it and extended it. MBS now emulates us. Count on others to follow it.
Of course, the level of inhibition varies from leader and by target. America’s singular influence in setting global “fashions” means that the inhibition will weaken most everywhere and the range of individuals targeted will widen.
The tactic of knocking-off the enemy’s chief has deep historical roots. In the age of kings and emperors, it was tempting to think of decapitating the opposition.
The public reaction in the United States to Khashoggi’s grisly murder reveals some singular features of the prevailing attitude toward morality in foreign policy:
Despite Trump’s rhetorical pullback, the United States has committed to a strategy of global dominance – by means violent as well as peaceable.
Americans remain wedded to the belief that they are a moral people following the course of righteousness in the world. “When conquer we must, for our cause it is just; let this be our motto: In God is our trust.”
This unthinking mental universe has permitted the US so far to perpetuate many myths about their place in the world. But eventually, they must look at the dark truth: The America that so many people around the globe looked to for guidance in seeking enlightened political truth has become the model and inspiration for those who seek to evade it.
Read more: US Drones and the Khashoggi Murder - The Globalist
His campaign of annihilation against the Houthis of Yemen indicates the depths of his depravity and the scope of his ambition.
So, too, did his imprisoning of 400 wealthy Saudis in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton where they were physically abused until they coughed up their riches for his personal use (e.g., spending $500 million for a mislabeled “Leonardo” painting). MBS thus presents a good imitation of Caligula and Nero.
So, too, did his kidnapping and physical abuse of the Prime Minister of Lebanon (Saad Hariri) – who owed MBS money and, therefore, political fealty.
In these ruthless ventures, he has been encouraged by the American government. The Saudi bombing of Yemen to smithereens, literally, could not happen physically without the active participation of the Pentagon.
The U.S. military flies the refueling planes without which MBS’s air force could not reach their targets in Yemen on two-way missions. It also provides the detailed electronic Intelligence critical to the mission.
Never mind that U.S. military personnel sit in the very command rooms from which the operations are conducted. In addition, Washington provides unqualified diplomatic cover and justification.
This is not only the Trump Administrations doing, but this Yemen “policy” was inaugurated by Barack Obama and was then continued by Trump. In legal terms, we — the United States — are an accessory before, during and after the fact of MBS’ crimes in Yemen.
The United States’s main responsibility lies in helping instill MBS’s deep sense of impunity. In addition, we encouraged the Saudi alliance with Israel. This gave MBS further confidence that active lobbying in Washington and the media would insulate him from any retribution.
Hence, feeling that he protected all his relevant flanks properly, he is now furious that some people in the West (not including the White House) are making such a fuss over the pedestrian act of whacking an annoying critic.
Furthermore, from the Saudi crown prince’s perspective, the United States has set the relevant precedent for the assassination of political enemies. Witness the US program of drone killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Chad and a number of other countries.
It is hard to deny that, via its drone strike “policy,” the U.S. government has gone a long way toward establishing the de facto legitimacy of extra-judicial murder as a standard combat tactic.
In the United States, this approach is accepted as such. Since targeted assassination involves no U.S. casualties, it makes the prosecution of war more palatable to the U.S. public. That is why is now an integral part of the playbook.
The chain of “command” is as follows: The Israelis inaugurated it. We Americans refined it and extended it. MBS now emulates us. Count on others to follow it.
Of course, the level of inhibition varies from leader and by target. America’s singular influence in setting global “fashions” means that the inhibition will weaken most everywhere and the range of individuals targeted will widen.
The tactic of knocking-off the enemy’s chief has deep historical roots. In the age of kings and emperors, it was tempting to think of decapitating the opposition.
The public reaction in the United States to Khashoggi’s grisly murder reveals some singular features of the prevailing attitude toward morality in foreign policy:
Despite Trump’s rhetorical pullback, the United States has committed to a strategy of global dominance – by means violent as well as peaceable.
Americans remain wedded to the belief that they are a moral people following the course of righteousness in the world. “When conquer we must, for our cause it is just; let this be our motto: In God is our trust.”
This unthinking mental universe has permitted the US so far to perpetuate many myths about their place in the world. But eventually, they must look at the dark truth: The America that so many people around the globe looked to for guidance in seeking enlightened political truth has become the model and inspiration for those who seek to evade it.
Read more: US Drones and the Khashoggi Murder - The Globalist
8/8/18
USA: Trump Destructivism: Way Beyond Russia - by Michael J. Brenner
For all the attention currently paid to Russia, let us not forget the
long list of other places in the world where the current government of
the United States has not been upholding the causes of political
freedom, democracy and national sovereignty.
Read more: Trump Destructivism: Way Beyond Russia - The Globalist
1. In ENGLAND
Trump aggressively promoted Boris Johnson as a brilliant leader, despite the latter’s direct challenge to Prime Minister Theresa May.2. In SCOTLAND
Trump lashed out at Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, with a barrage of highly personal insults.3. In GERMANY
Trump has striven to weaken the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel through his constant denunciations of her judgment and domestic policies.4. In POLAND
the Trump administration has lent its full support to the ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic government.5. In HUNGARY
it has done the same in support of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.6. In SAUDI ARABIA
Trump warmly embraced Crown Prince Mohammed bin-Salman despite his shake-down of other Saudi leaders and dangerous crack-down on the Shi’ite community.7. In ECUADOR
Washington has encouraged current Prime Minister Lenin Moreno to pursue a vendetta against former President Rafael Correa because of the latter’s social democratic policies and unwillingness to kow-tow to U.S. business interests.8. In NICARAGUA
the United States is backing the campaign to overthrow the democratically elected government of Daniel Ortega.9. In HONDURAS
the United States strong-armed the OAS not to penalize the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez for its blatant rigging of the election last year.10. In IRAN
Trump leads a thinly concealed campaign to overthrow the current government.11. In YEMEN
the United States has chosen sides in a civil war that involves participation in a homicidal air campaign carried out by Saudi Arabia and other outside parties.12. In the PHILIPPINES
Trump personally has bolstered President Rodrigo Duterte in his program to build a lawless autocracy.13. In SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
the United States is actively involved in the internal politics of a dozen or so countries.Read more: Trump Destructivism: Way Beyond Russia - The Globalist
1/12/18
USA - Shithole: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant - by Ryan Teague Beckwith and Maya Rhodan
Lost in the furor over his “shithole” comment is the argument that Trump was making at the time.
The White House held the meeting to discuss a bipartisan immigration deal that would help undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who got relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, foreign nationals who fled manmade and natural disasters and received temporary protected status (TPS) in the U.S. and immigrants seeking to come to the U.S. through a diversity lottery.
That’s a lot to unpack, so we’ll walk through these one at a time. But here’s the short version: If you are upset about Trump calling African nations “shithole countries” and disparaging Haitians, you probably won’t like what he was proposing either.
Note EU-Digest: The new Yorker wrote: "President Trump’s credibility as a world leader has been, to borrow his vulgarity, shot to shit. With one word—just the latest in a string of slurs about other nations and peoples—he has demolished his ability to be taken seriously on the global stage. “There is no other word one can use but ‘racist,’ ” the spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said at a briefing in Geneva. “You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as ‘shitholes,’ whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome.”
We can not agree more: Donald Trump is a disgrace for America.
Read more: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant | Time
5/22/17
Terrorism: CNN guest immediately links Manchester explosion to "the two plus million refugees that have come into Europe"
ERIN BURNETT: When you look at something like this
happening in the UK -- and there are still so many details we don't
know, right? These are just a few eyewitness accounts that we are
putting together from people who are very much in shock, but you heard
that woman say, "20 or 30 bodies," she saw a lot of blood. We just don't
know at this point, but what we're hearing is horrific.
DAN SENOR: Right, so -- a human catastrophe of it, just in its raw form that we're hearing about and seeing images of makes it hard to analyze these things, we hope it was not a terrorist attack. We hope something exploded and people panic, god forbid -- But it tells you a lot about the climate in which we are in today. That something like this happens in Europe.
10,15, 20 years ago, our minds wouldn't have immediately gone to a terrorist attack. Between France, and Brussels, and all these terrorist -- UK, these terrorist attacks have been going on around the region, and this constant focus in political environments over the last several years on the two plus million refugees that have come into Europe, via Germany, and now many of whom have spread throughout Europe, and established or inserted themselves into communities that create infrastructure for terror.
Whether this is that or not, that is where people's minds go, and as Spider [Marks] said earlier, Teresa May has got an election coming up this week, she was the Home Secretary under Prime Minister Cameron. She was the equivalent of the Secretary of Homeland Security. She was regarded in the UK as having this strong homeland security credentials.
Note EU-Digest: Not a sole in the US Government and even in many European countries is willing to openly admit that the refugee problem in Europe, and the terrorist activities there are a direct result of the totally failed US foreign policy and military involvement in the Middle East {Iraq, Syria and Libya) and there still is no end in sight. The EU needs to have the courage to get out of this totally destructive alignment with the US, unless they change their policies. Given the election of Trump as US President this is very unlikely.
Read more: CNN guest immediately links Manchester explosion to "the two plus million refugees that have come into Europe"
DAN SENOR: Right, so -- a human catastrophe of it, just in its raw form that we're hearing about and seeing images of makes it hard to analyze these things, we hope it was not a terrorist attack. We hope something exploded and people panic, god forbid -- But it tells you a lot about the climate in which we are in today. That something like this happens in Europe.
10,15, 20 years ago, our minds wouldn't have immediately gone to a terrorist attack. Between France, and Brussels, and all these terrorist -- UK, these terrorist attacks have been going on around the region, and this constant focus in political environments over the last several years on the two plus million refugees that have come into Europe, via Germany, and now many of whom have spread throughout Europe, and established or inserted themselves into communities that create infrastructure for terror.
Whether this is that or not, that is where people's minds go, and as Spider [Marks] said earlier, Teresa May has got an election coming up this week, she was the Home Secretary under Prime Minister Cameron. She was the equivalent of the Secretary of Homeland Security. She was regarded in the UK as having this strong homeland security credentials.
Note EU-Digest: Not a sole in the US Government and even in many European countries is willing to openly admit that the refugee problem in Europe, and the terrorist activities there are a direct result of the totally failed US foreign policy and military involvement in the Middle East {Iraq, Syria and Libya) and there still is no end in sight. The EU needs to have the courage to get out of this totally destructive alignment with the US, unless they change their policies. Given the election of Trump as US President this is very unlikely.
Read more: CNN guest immediately links Manchester explosion to "the two plus million refugees that have come into Europe"
4/12/17
NATO: President Trump makes 180 degrees turn on NATO:, says 'It's no longer obsolete' - by Ryan Struyk
 |
| Results of 16 years of Disastrous Middle East Foreign Policy |
President Donald Trump
reversed course on his view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
on Wednesday, saying the organization is "no longer obsolete" after
months of bashing the defense alliance as no longer relevant during his
campaign.
"I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete," Trump said in a joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House.
"The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more
NATO can do in the fight against terrorism," Trump said. "I complained
about that a long time ago, and they made a change and now they do fight
terrorism.
"... Every generation strives to adopt the NATO alliance to meet the
challenges of their times, and on my visit to Brussels this spring,
which I look very much forward to, we will work together to do the
same," Trump continued, calling for NATO to support Iraq to fight ISIS.
"We must not be trapped by the tired thinking that so many have, but
apply new solutions to face new circumstances."
Trump also reiterated that countries in NATO ought to allocate 2 percent
of their GDP of military spending, a frequent rallying cry during his
presidential campaign last year. Only five of the 28 member states
currently do so, including the U.S.
Trump said that NATO was obsolete as recently as this January in an
interview with The Times of London. “I said a long time ago that NATO
had problems. No. 1, it was obsolete because it was designed many, many
years ago. No. 2, the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to
pay," Trump said in January. "I took such heat when I said NATO was
obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a
lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right."
Note EU-Digest: - When somebody says one thing, does another, and possibly thinks something else, all that you’re going to wind up with is problems.
Let us be honest these problems are the direct result of how President Trump's Administration has been conducting its day to day business on just about every given issue during Trump's Presidency so far.
Let us be honest these problems are the direct result of how President Trump's Administration has been conducting its day to day business on just about every given issue during Trump's Presidency so far.
Hopefully the EU does not fall for this self-serving nonsense of the Trump Administration.
It should make clear to the US Administration, that as a result of US failed Middle East Policies during the past two decades, which included NATO EU nations involvement in the equation, the EU is now saddled up with millions of refugees and ISIS terrorism.
Business can not be conducted as usual because it has not worked.
It should make clear to the US Administration, that as a result of US failed Middle East Policies during the past two decades, which included NATO EU nations involvement in the equation, the EU is now saddled up with millions of refugees and ISIS terrorism.
Business can not be conducted as usual because it has not worked.
The reality is that the EU needs a more effective and mature relationship with the US, which includes having an independent foreign policy and military defense force. It is as simple as that.
10/17/16
Fiction or Reality?: Trump's first day at the Oval Office - First briefing by the CIA, Pentagon, FBI
 |
| US Presidential Election 2016 |
CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.
Trump: The Democrats created them.
CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.
CIA: We can't do that. Modi will cut Balochistan out of Pak.Trump: I don't care.
CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.
CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.
Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.
Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.
Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.Trump: Why not? THEY ARE OUR NEW "FRIENDS" ...
CIA: We are talking to them, sir.Trump: What? Why?
CIA: We want our stealth drone back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.
Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.
CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?
CIA: We need the Shi'ite gov't of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.
FBI: We can't do that.Trump: Why not?
FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.
Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.Trump: Why not?
Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?Trump: I am banning H1Bs.
USCIS: You cannot do that.Trump: Why?
Chief of staff: If you do so we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.Trump: What the hell should I do???
CIA: Just enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!!!
God bless America!
Final note: "What if Hillary Clinton becomes President - Don't worry, she already knows all this from previous briefings as a member of the Presidential Cabinet".
EU-Digest
8/26/16
US Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America's Global Role - by Christopher A. Preble
The end of the Cold War ushered in a unipolar world, cementing U.S. dominance over a generally liberal international order. Yet where once it seemed that U.S. foreign policy would be simpler and easier to manage as a result, the events of the past 15 years — the 9/11 attacks, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Arab Spring, and Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine — strongly suggest otherwise.
Instead, policymakers and political candidates generally embrace the status quo. Bipartisan support exists for extensive alliance commitments, frequent military intervention, and higher defense spending. Though this orthodoxy is unsurprising since many candidates receive advice from a limited number of sources, it is deeply concerning. Debates tend to focus on which specific actions the United States should take, only rarely asking whether the United States should be involved, militarily or otherwise, in various global crises.
Even President Barack Obama, elected in large part thanks to his repudiation of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy, has failed to alter the underlying bipartisan consensus that America remains the “indispensable nation” whose leadership is required in perpetuity. It is easy to see why this idea persists: America’s invaluable and outsized role in protecting the liberal international order during the Cold War was followed by two decades of unipoThe world today is certainly safer for Americans than it was under the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. But the world is undoubtedly more complex, as nonstate actors, shifting alliances, and diverse domestic political factors complicate U.S. foreign policy formation and implementation. A robust debate on America’s foreign policy choices is urgently needed.
Read more: Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America's Global Role | Cato Institute
Instead, policymakers and political candidates generally embrace the status quo. Bipartisan support exists for extensive alliance commitments, frequent military intervention, and higher defense spending. Though this orthodoxy is unsurprising since many candidates receive advice from a limited number of sources, it is deeply concerning. Debates tend to focus on which specific actions the United States should take, only rarely asking whether the United States should be involved, militarily or otherwise, in various global crises.
Even President Barack Obama, elected in large part thanks to his repudiation of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy, has failed to alter the underlying bipartisan consensus that America remains the “indispensable nation” whose leadership is required in perpetuity. It is easy to see why this idea persists: America’s invaluable and outsized role in protecting the liberal international order during the Cold War was followed by two decades of unipoThe world today is certainly safer for Americans than it was under the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. But the world is undoubtedly more complex, as nonstate actors, shifting alliances, and diverse domestic political factors complicate U.S. foreign policy formation and implementation. A robust debate on America’s foreign policy choices is urgently needed.
Read more: Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America's Global Role | Cato Institute
3/23/16
The Bruxelles Tragedy: US failed Middle East policy indrectly responsible for Brussels terror attacks - by Claire Bernish
 |
| Brussels Landmark Statue "Manneke Pis" says it all |
This blame, meted out to a religion whose tenets expressly forbid killing innocents — “it is as if he had slain mankind entirely” — lacks fundamental logic. Worse, it lacks precision.
Without precision and studied consideration of the conditions which culminated in these acts of terrorism, one guarantee can be cemented: future attacks.
Why? Because humans have an unironic penchant for neglecting lessons from past mistakes — and an unfaltering blindfold as if their present actions exist in a vacuum. Indeed, blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few falsely claiming they follow its teachings might be precisely what the ignominious war machine of U.S. imperialism needs. In fact, modern-day terrorism exists because of the actions of a specific religion — and it isn’t Islam.
Imperialism, and its roots planted firmly in statism, inarguably create, foster, and perpetuate terrorism at an alarming rate. An active military campaign and overarching surveillance program ostensibly embarked upon to demolish terrorism — anywhere on the planet — instead manufacture terrorism at an increasingly rapid rate.
This cyclical structure isn’t difficult to comprehend, yet it somehow escapes those eager to scapegoat blame on the undeserving — because xenophobia.
For years, the United States military and its over-inflated budget have bombed the hell out of predominantly Muslim countries — doing a bang-up job of mostly missing intended targets, instead killing civilian non-combatants more than of the time by some estimates. U.S. foreign policy’s relentless hammer created the staggering refugee crisis as civilians — either having their homes destroyed by bombing or from justifiable fear it could happen — by the millions feel they have no choice but to escape.
Worse still, the U.S.’ vying for natural resources — oil, opium, rare earth metals, and more — have caused a complex juggernaut of proxy wars with sometimes contradictory aims. This wrangling to exploit countrysides in otherwise peaceful countries stands as classic imperialist dogma: they have it, the U.S. government wants it, and the military is promptly deployed to make it happen.
Largely downplayed in this cycle are countless corporations pulling the strings — directly driving hegemonic foreign policy.
Would we need to invade Afghanistan for its insanely profitable opium crops without Big Pharma? Doubtful. Would we need to partner with Saudi Arabia — not only a notorious human rights abuser, but one of the most despised countries in the Middle East — were it not for its enormous stores of oil? No way.
Would Syria be the quagmire it has become if it weren’t geostrategically integral for a proposed oil pipeline? Nope.
War has been called ‘endless’ for justifiable reasons — but it wouldn’t be so without imperialism driving its existence. Violence is its tool. But endless violence isn’t without consequences.
Terrorism holds undeniable responsibility for the attacks in Brussels, but it didn’t manifest because of Islam.
Blaming Islam is the lazy way out of holding those ultimately responsible for its rise — and secures its perpetuation. But it doesn’t mean Islam is to blame.
Note EU-Digest: as has been mentioned many times before - the EU, in addition to numerous other urgent changes it needs to make to avoid self-destruction, must establish it's own Middle East foreign policy based on economic development and trade, and completely "divorce" itself from the many years of failed US Middle East policies.
Read also: America Should Take Responsibility for the Brussels Terror Attacks
3/11/16
USA: President Obama’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy - by Jeffrey Goldberg
Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the
feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the
world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the
sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped
back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on
Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington,
D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks,
delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of
civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
Obama, in whose Cabinet Kerry serves faithfully, but with some exasperation, is himself given to vaulting oratory, but not usually of the martial sort associated with Churchill. Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena.
The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, and his foreign-policy amanuensis, told me not long ago.
But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action.
“As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way,” Kerry said in his speech. “History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most.”
Read more: President Obama’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy - The Atlantic
Obama, in whose Cabinet Kerry serves faithfully, but with some exasperation, is himself given to vaulting oratory, but not usually of the martial sort associated with Churchill. Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena.
The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, and his foreign-policy amanuensis, told me not long ago.
But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action.
“As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way,” Kerry said in his speech. “History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most.”
Read more: President Obama’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy - The Atlantic
9/6/15
Europe’s multi-layered hypocrisy on refugees or "Kettle (US) calling the Pot (EU) black" ? - by Anne Applebaum
Sun, a British tabloid, has spent a decade railing against immigrants of all kinds. Not long ago, it told the British prime minister to “Draw a Red Line on Immigration — Or Else.” Now, after the publication of photographs of a dead Syrian toddler washed up on a Turkish beach, it wants him to “Deal With the Worst Crisis Facing Europe Since WW2.” Having just declared that there was no point in accepting “more and more refugees,” poor David Cameron has now declared that, actually, Britain would accept more and more refugees. His aides hurriedly explained that “he had not seen the photographs” when he made the original statement.
More
layers of hypocrisy: Although the photographs are indeed terrible, they
aren’t actually telling us anything new. Refugees have been crossing
the Mediterranean for months. Hundreds have died. Also, if we are
disturbed by a dead child on a beach, why aren’t we disturbed by another
dead child in a bombed-out house in Aleppo, Syria? What’s the distinction?
As of July, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had registered more than 4 million Syrian refugees, of whom well over a million are in Turkey and 1.5 million are in Lebanon, a country of only 4.8 million people. That’s not counting Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans and others who have equally suffered political or religious persecution, or even the millions of displaced Syrians still in Syria. Exactly how many of them will Europe take.
Note EU-Digest : A typical case of "the kettle calling the pot black". No one writes or talks about the fact that this whole migrant drama is the result of a totally defunct US Middle East policy in which they dragged, or better even, forced Europe to follow ". If only Europe had some independent political leaders with the courage to tell the US to "go and take a hike." Unfortunately most of our European politicians are not looking out for Europe where it counts.
Also click here for additional information on the above issue.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-crisis-on-europes-shores/2015/09/04/2fb38864-5319-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html
8/26/15
US Foreign Policy: Do America's Military Bases Abroad Help Or Hinder Global Security? - by David Vine
David Vine, an associate professor of anthropology at American University, argues that we've become too dependent on such overseas bases — and that many of them cause serious opposition abroad. He lays out his thinking in his new book, Base Nation: How the U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World.
In the book he notes : "Most of the bases were established during or shortly after World War II. And ever since, Vine says, there have been pockets of local opposition.
"I think there were tensions almost immediately in Germany and Japan, in particular, where these bases were helping U.S. troops and allied troops to occupy the enemy territory," Vine tells Weekend All Things Considered guest host Tess Vigeland.
"Pretty quickly, as the Cold War developed, we see France evict the United States in the mid-1960s. We see countries like Trinidad and Tobago evict the United States, also in the 1960s, and we see growing protest movements in places like Okinawa that continue to the present."
He argues that the U.S. ought to take those protests serious.
Largely people, of course, don't like their land occupied by foreign troops. And I think it's worth thinking - for American audiences to think about how it would feel to have foreign troops living next-door, occupying your land with tanks. But there have also been a number of harms that these bases have inflicted on local communities. There have been accidents, crimes committed by U.S. personnel, environmental damage - a whole range of damage that people are quite upset about.
The book is not initially calling for the closure of every U.S. base overseas. It's calling for, first of all, a conversation about this massive network of bases and whether they're increasing national security or the security of the world. It's important also to point out that a major way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world is through these military bases that are occupying other people's lands. David Vine suggests that a fundamental transition needs to take place now to emphasize increasingly diplomatic engagement rather than military engagement.
Note EU-Digest: a recent report from the BBC notes that the US currently has more than 60,000 troops stationed in Europe, mostly in Germany, Italy and the UK. The US earlier in the year has also announced it will close 15 obsolete military bases across Europe which date back to the cold was era at a savings of about $500m a year. The number of total US servicemen will remain the same, however, according to the US Pentagon, as the US ramps up rotations within Europe for military training programs.
Read more: Do America's Military Bases Abroad Help Or Hinder Global Security? | WGBH News
6/14/15
Ukraine: While Middle East is falling apart US now storing heavy weapons and tanks in Eastern Europe
Some 200 years ago Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means." It still holds truth today.
And...as we all know, politics are very much influenced by the corporate lobby and interest groups.
In the case of the US, the military industrial complex plays a major role in the political decision procress.
Even though the extravagant US military budget was cut according to The Wall Street Journal over the past four years from $721 billion, to "just" $560 billion -- It still provides a huge market for the Pentagon's new weapons systems, and a lot of revenue "up for grabs" by the defense contractors.
If you look, however, at the track record of the US military, which was sent into war by the political establishment, the results, overall have been dismal.
Just this 21st century alone, the US, assisted by a "coalition of the willing" (some have called them willing "lap dogs"), fought three wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
What these wars had in common is that each time, the US and their "allies" scored what they thought was a stunning victory -- they quickly also found out that victory was a brief mirage on the road to defeat.
Today's results of the disastrous US Middle East policy, which goes way back in time, is really starting to "bear fruit", specially when we watch the recent boatloads of Middle Eastern and North African refugees arriving on the shores of Europe.
When former US President George W. Bush announced in 2003, on the US aircraft carrier SS Abraham Lincoln, that the combat operations in Iraq were over, while he proudly stood under a "Mission accomplished" banner, he could not have been more wrong, specially if we look at the aftermath of that war today.
As someone said at the time of the Bush victory announcement, "confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the situation."
And here we go again, as the US announced on Saturday, June 13, that it plans to store heavy military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern European nations to "reassure allies made uneasy by Russian intervention in Ukraine, and to deter further aggression", a senior U.S. official said.
Several questions arise? What is the EU Commission and Parliament saying about this. Are they just sitting back and letting the US steam-role them into another military escapade?
Isn't it time Europe starts to do some serious thinking about the fact that always blindly "following the leader" is maybe not the right way to go forward? Or, that the real issue at stake in Europe is the Ukraine crisis and the future of America’s role as Europe’s security guarantor.
EU-Digest
And...as we all know, politics are very much influenced by the corporate lobby and interest groups.
In the case of the US, the military industrial complex plays a major role in the political decision procress.
Even though the extravagant US military budget was cut according to The Wall Street Journal over the past four years from $721 billion, to "just" $560 billion -- It still provides a huge market for the Pentagon's new weapons systems, and a lot of revenue "up for grabs" by the defense contractors.
If you look, however, at the track record of the US military, which was sent into war by the political establishment, the results, overall have been dismal.
Just this 21st century alone, the US, assisted by a "coalition of the willing" (some have called them willing "lap dogs"), fought three wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
What these wars had in common is that each time, the US and their "allies" scored what they thought was a stunning victory -- they quickly also found out that victory was a brief mirage on the road to defeat.
Today's results of the disastrous US Middle East policy, which goes way back in time, is really starting to "bear fruit", specially when we watch the recent boatloads of Middle Eastern and North African refugees arriving on the shores of Europe.
When former US President George W. Bush announced in 2003, on the US aircraft carrier SS Abraham Lincoln, that the combat operations in Iraq were over, while he proudly stood under a "Mission accomplished" banner, he could not have been more wrong, specially if we look at the aftermath of that war today.
As someone said at the time of the Bush victory announcement, "confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the situation."
And here we go again, as the US announced on Saturday, June 13, that it plans to store heavy military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern European nations to "reassure allies made uneasy by Russian intervention in Ukraine, and to deter further aggression", a senior U.S. official said.
Several questions arise? What is the EU Commission and Parliament saying about this. Are they just sitting back and letting the US steam-role them into another military escapade?
Isn't it time Europe starts to do some serious thinking about the fact that always blindly "following the leader" is maybe not the right way to go forward? Or, that the real issue at stake in Europe is the Ukraine crisis and the future of America’s role as Europe’s security guarantor.
EU-Digest
1/19/15
EU and the US: strange bedfellows - perceptions and reality - by RM
Historical ties: US and Europe respect many common democratic ideals and through-out the years always jointly stood up for these ideals on many occasions, including-fighting wars and conflicts over these ideals against adversaries together .
Economics: both the EU and the US adhere, certainly if we look at these ideals in the past, to supporting and promoting free and open global trade,
This common purpose has, however, eroded rapidly over the past 5 - 10 years.
Comparing US and EU austerity programs following the 2008 economic crises, it seems that when you put EU austerity programs under a magnifying glass they are in effect quite realistic, and even though they are so far not showing spectacular results, these measures seem to be working.
The US, on the other hand, seems to be doing economics by "magic wand" and in the process has rung up the world's biggest deficit.
The so-called quantitative easing {QE) developed by the US Fed in fact means just printing more money and putting their head in the sand. QE is only pushing the day of reckoning further away. Unfortunately, this kind of economic policy will come and haunt the US in a big way one day.
In the past the US had a thriving industrial base on which it could fall back. It does not have that today.
As to Europe and the ECB, chaired by Mario Draghi, a former Goldman Sachs employee, it seems the ECB is also expected to take the plunge into quantitative easing, mainly as a result of constant Wall Street Pressure.
The results, in the long run, will like with the US program, eventually not be what was expected.
Facts and figures: European economic data is usually very accurate. In contrast, US economic data including labor data is not always accurate, making it necessary for the US Government to release several updates and revisions which make it quite confusing for economic analysts.
Freedom of the Press: there does not seem to be any apparent censorship of the Press in either the EU or the US
Watching the news in America outsiders are constantly amazed by the uniformity and sensationalist news coverage projected by the corporate owned networks to the majority of US viewers,
Two US exceptions as to the above observation are "link TV" and "PBS".
Aljazeera America and BBC America are also considered good alternatives for news "without a slant" one can watch in America.
For more international news, another possibility is "streaming" news from France24 on your computer. .
For Europeans in America interested to keep up-to-date with their home news they will find most local European TV stations have internet links which you can watch anywhere in the world..
Miscellaneous observations Some other general observations about American and European differences
Like the EU, the US is a magnet for immigrants and refugees from economically, democratically, and war ravaged countries.
The US population in general is obese, consumer driven, under-educated and not very savvy when it comes to world affairs or in speaking foreign languages.
The EU population is nationalistically and negatively inclined at what they consider as foreign, be it immigrants or religious beliefs..
Europeans in general are far better educated than Americans, many speak at least 2 to 3 languages and are aware of what is going on around the world.
Corporations: Corporate America: has basically taken over political America and regardless of the fact that they are perceived in both the US and the EU as corrupt and too powerful, are nevertheless continuing their practices as usual and are practically unopposed by governments on both sides of the Atlantic
Corporations and their lobbyists are getting an ever stronger foothold in the European parliament.
Racial Divide: There is still a huge, often hidden, racial divide between black and white in America.
Middle East: The strong Jewish influence and political lobby by Israel in relation to US policies in the Middle East has certainly contributed to the present chaotic situation in that area.
The situation becomes even more muddled if one includes in that picture the US close ties with Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
One could also say that this situation is reminiscent of the former British Empire "divide and conquer" policies which eventually ended in disaster.
The EU has a different vision about relations with Middle Eastern countries and has close ties with the Palestinians and their leader Abbas .
The EU has also strongly objected against the destructive Israeli attacks against Gaza and the unauthorized expansion of Israel on the West bank.
NATO: EU states are usually forced to go along with the US on their military adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere as a result of their membership in NATO.
Research and polls show that 68 % of the EU 500 million plus population would vote in favor of getting out of the NATO if a referendum were held today
The Environment: On the issues of global warming, GMO, and alternative energy, the population of the US is held mainly in the dark by the corporate controlled press and government.
Consequently, they are not totally aware of the dangers lurking around the corner if no action is taken.
Future outlook: A positive development for future change is that the "below 30" of the US population have no appetite for any global military adventures, and little or no confidence in their present political representatives. and believe transparency of Government actions are compromised.
This positive outlook is also apparent in Europe
It certainly is a hopeful sign that the change which is coming will probably also result in the US and the EU becoming more equal and independent partners within the Atlantic Alliance than they are today.
EU-Digest
11/3/14
US Foreign Policy: A "Laid Back" American Foreign Policy? - by Michael Brenner
There is an undercurrent of thinking in foreign policy circles that a
restrained, less actively engaged approach to the country's external
relations may best conform to American national interests and
capabilities. It has emerged as counterpoint to the hyper activism that
has characterized the United States' dealings in the world during the
post-9/11 era. Its key postulates are the following:
• There exists no direct threat to our vital interests of a magnitude &/or immediacy; we are more secure than at any time since the 1920s.
• This relatively benign environment permits us to be selective in deciding where we might assert American powers -- the use of military force in particular.
• Our current over extension as driven by the pursuit of global dominance is draining national resources for at best marginal increments in influence and at times are counter productive
• We can and should rely more on others to address the problems created by those who are hostile to us and who may destabilize regions where we have significant concerns.
• Such a strategic perspective entails a more discriminating attitude toward the promotion of democratic forces in places where autocratic regimes do not follow policies that endanger our interests or friends.
• Specific terrorist threats should be treated primarily as an intelligence/police problem; we should refrain from trying to arrange the affairs of other societies to prevent the deterioration of conditions conducive to terrorist recruitment and organization
Read more: A "Laid Back" American Foreign Policy? | Michael Brenner
• There exists no direct threat to our vital interests of a magnitude &/or immediacy; we are more secure than at any time since the 1920s.
• This relatively benign environment permits us to be selective in deciding where we might assert American powers -- the use of military force in particular.
• Our current over extension as driven by the pursuit of global dominance is draining national resources for at best marginal increments in influence and at times are counter productive
• We can and should rely more on others to address the problems created by those who are hostile to us and who may destabilize regions where we have significant concerns.
• Such a strategic perspective entails a more discriminating attitude toward the promotion of democratic forces in places where autocratic regimes do not follow policies that endanger our interests or friends.
• Specific terrorist threats should be treated primarily as an intelligence/police problem; we should refrain from trying to arrange the affairs of other societies to prevent the deterioration of conditions conducive to terrorist recruitment and organization
Read more: A "Laid Back" American Foreign Policy? | Michael Brenner
5/29/14
US Foreign Policy and Europe: What Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech Means for Europe - by Judy Dempsey
One of the most important aspects of Obama’s
speech was the retreat from hard power. As he told the class of 2014,
“you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into
combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.” No wonder the young men and women
applauded.
Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be underestimated. Besides lasting over thirteen years and costing many thousands of casualties, these wars showed how the use of such hard power failed to achieve the desired outcome.
Iraq is mired in sectarianism, corruption, and insecurity. Those struggling for human rights and the rule of law in Afghanistan dread the day when the bulk of U.S. troops leave the country later this year. There are big question marks over the wisdom of the 2011 NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya given the turmoil in the country today. Above all—and this is very important for the Europeans—America’s war on terror clashed with America’s values.
Obama is now trying to repair the damage wreaked by the war on terror.
Since 9/11, successive U.S. administrations have run roughshod over human rights. Torture, targeted killings, and renditions were condoned. Detainees were not, and are still not, tried before the courts but instead are put before military tribunals—if their cases are processed at all. To this day, despite so many pleadings by human rights organizations and lawyers, those detainees on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay are being force-fed.
Obama was right to say that he intended to close the Guantánamo detention camp. But he promised that when he was first elected president in 2008. In previous speeches, Obama has admitted that the war on terror, and especially Guantánamo, damaged America’s standing in the world. Indeed, the war on terror downgraded values, dignity, and basic decency to such a degree that many countries, particularly in the Middle East, came to despise the United States, which had so long espoused the values of freedom and tolerance.
European governments are not blameless either.
For far too long, most European leaders were relieved to have America do their dirty work. Yes, they condemned the existence of Guantánamo Bay, its appalling practices, and the disregard of the rule of law.
They also called for the camp to be closed. But how many European governments then helped Obama shut it down when he asked his allies to take some of the detainees? A mere handful.
Europeans were also relieved when, in 2011, U.S. special forces killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In short, for all the criticism of Obama’s policies, more often than not Europeans were prepared to support them.
Yet when Obama decided not to intervene in Syria, despite the many thousands of civilian deaths there, European governments went along with that too. They were neither politically nor militarily prepared to act without the United States. With few exceptions, European leaders have also been mute over how the values that defined the transatlantic relationship have become eroded.
Of course, the United States is not going to abandon hard power or its leadership in the world.
Yet behind these words is a retreat to a special kind of soft power. Obama wants to establish new counterterrorism partnership fund designed to train and “facilitate partner countries on the front lines.” He intends to work with European allies “to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and [support] French operations in Mali.” There was very little mention of the role of NATO.
Obama also justified Washington’s soft power policy toward Ukraine, saying U.S. sanctions on Russia proved that such kind of pressure was effective. But for all that, it is hard to see Russian President Vladimir Putin and authoritarian regimes in Central Asia and elsewhere shaking in their boots over Obama’s doctrine.
European leaders should not feel vindicated by Obama’s speech.
They have been wobbly over Russia and inconsistent over defending their values. If anything, they should realize that the United States is no longer going to do the running for the Europeans. Since that is the case, what about the Europeans replying to Obama with their own foreign and security policy doctrine?
Read more: What Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech Means for Europe - Carnegie Europe
Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be underestimated. Besides lasting over thirteen years and costing many thousands of casualties, these wars showed how the use of such hard power failed to achieve the desired outcome.
Iraq is mired in sectarianism, corruption, and insecurity. Those struggling for human rights and the rule of law in Afghanistan dread the day when the bulk of U.S. troops leave the country later this year. There are big question marks over the wisdom of the 2011 NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya given the turmoil in the country today. Above all—and this is very important for the Europeans—America’s war on terror clashed with America’s values.
Obama is now trying to repair the damage wreaked by the war on terror.
Since 9/11, successive U.S. administrations have run roughshod over human rights. Torture, targeted killings, and renditions were condoned. Detainees were not, and are still not, tried before the courts but instead are put before military tribunals—if their cases are processed at all. To this day, despite so many pleadings by human rights organizations and lawyers, those detainees on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay are being force-fed.
Obama was right to say that he intended to close the Guantánamo detention camp. But he promised that when he was first elected president in 2008. In previous speeches, Obama has admitted that the war on terror, and especially Guantánamo, damaged America’s standing in the world. Indeed, the war on terror downgraded values, dignity, and basic decency to such a degree that many countries, particularly in the Middle East, came to despise the United States, which had so long espoused the values of freedom and tolerance.
European governments are not blameless either.
For far too long, most European leaders were relieved to have America do their dirty work. Yes, they condemned the existence of Guantánamo Bay, its appalling practices, and the disregard of the rule of law.
They also called for the camp to be closed. But how many European governments then helped Obama shut it down when he asked his allies to take some of the detainees? A mere handful.
Europeans were also relieved when, in 2011, U.S. special forces killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In short, for all the criticism of Obama’s policies, more often than not Europeans were prepared to support them.
Yet when Obama decided not to intervene in Syria, despite the many thousands of civilian deaths there, European governments went along with that too. They were neither politically nor militarily prepared to act without the United States. With few exceptions, European leaders have also been mute over how the values that defined the transatlantic relationship have become eroded.
Of course, the United States is not going to abandon hard power or its leadership in the world.
Yet behind these words is a retreat to a special kind of soft power. Obama wants to establish new counterterrorism partnership fund designed to train and “facilitate partner countries on the front lines.” He intends to work with European allies “to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and [support] French operations in Mali.” There was very little mention of the role of NATO.
Obama also justified Washington’s soft power policy toward Ukraine, saying U.S. sanctions on Russia proved that such kind of pressure was effective. But for all that, it is hard to see Russian President Vladimir Putin and authoritarian regimes in Central Asia and elsewhere shaking in their boots over Obama’s doctrine.
European leaders should not feel vindicated by Obama’s speech.
They have been wobbly over Russia and inconsistent over defending their values. If anything, they should realize that the United States is no longer going to do the running for the Europeans. Since that is the case, what about the Europeans replying to Obama with their own foreign and security policy doctrine?
Read more: What Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech Means for Europe - Carnegie Europe
11/4/13
US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Flawed intelligence and long term planning chaotic and amateurish
The United States has cut off northern Syrian moderate rebel groups from
non-lethal aid, with an al-Qaeda advance in northern Syria physically
blocking the aid’s dispersal, as the Obama administration continues to
‘disengage’ itself from Syria. The Turkish Daily Hürriyet’s Washington representative, Tolga Tanış, reported that the Obama administration commenced its ‘disengagement’ from Syria on Oct. 2, laying out three conditions to the moderate rebels, should they wish for the resumption of aid.
A joint U.S.-Russia plan on the chemical disarmament of Syria and clashes between the Western-Arab-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) and al-Qaeda-linked rebels known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) factored into the halting of aid to the rebels. Turkey closed its Öncüpınar border gate on Sept. 18 amid an al-Qaeda advance and the U.S. stopped a batch of non-lethal aid to moderate rebels.
If any area of the world lacks a single bright spot for the US, it's the Middle East. The problems, of course, extend back many years and many administrations. Kerry is a relative newcomer. Still, he's made seven of his 15 overseas trips there, with zero signs of progress on the American agenda in the region, and much that has only worsened.
The sole pluses came from diplomatic activity initiated by powers not exactly considered Washington's closest buddies: Russian President Putin's moves in relation to Syria (on which more later) and new Iranian President Rouhani's "charm offensive" in New York, which seems to have altered for the better the relationship between the two countries. In fact, both Putin's and Rouhani's moves are classic, well-played diplomacy, and only serve to highlight the amateurish quality of Kerry's performance.
On the other hand, the Obama administration's major Middle East commitment—to peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians—seems destined for a graveyard already piled high with past versions of the same.
Meanwhile, whatever spark remained of the Arab Spring in Egypt was snuffed out by a military coup, while the US lamely took forever just to begin to cut off some symbolic military aid to the new government.
American credibility in the region suffered further damage after State, in a seeming panic, closed embassies across the Middle East in response to a reputed major terror threat that failed to materialize anywhere but inside Washington's Beltway.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia was once nicknamed "Bandar Bush" for his strong support of the US during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign and the Bush dynasty. He recently told European diplomats, however, that the Kingdom will launch a "major shift" in relations with the United States to protest Washington's perceived inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran. The Saudis were once considered, next to Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. Kerry's response? Fly to Paris for some "urgent talks."
Turkey is also no exception when it comes to Kerry.s Middle trip count. He's traveled thereat least three times, with (again) little to show for his efforts. Turkey led by the egomaniac PM Erdogan, also a NATO member, which in the past refused to help the Bush administration with its invasion of Iraq, continues to fight a border war with Iraqi Kurds. (Both sides do utilize mainly American-made weapons.) The Turks are active in Syria as well, supporting the rebels, fearing the Islamic extremists, lobbing mortar shells across the border, and suffering under the weight of that devastated country's refugees.
Meanwhile—a small regional disaster from a US perspective—Turkish-Israeli relations, once close, continue to slide. Recently, the Turks even outed a Mossad spy ring to the Iranians, and no one, Israelis, Turks, or otherwise, seems to be listening to Washington.
As for Kerry's nine-month performance review, here goes: he often seems unsure and distracted, projecting a sense that he might prefer to be anywhere else than wherever he is. In addition, he's displayed a policy-crippling lack of information, remarkably little poise, and strikingly bad word choice, while regularly voicing surprising new positions on old issues. The logical conclusion might be to call for his instant resignation before more damage is done.
The days of the United States being able to treat the world as its chessboard are over. It's now closer to a Rubik's Cube that Washington can't figure out how to manipulate. Across the globe, people noted how the World's Mightiest Army was fought to a draw (or worse) in Iraq and Afghanistan by insurgents with only small arms, roadside bombs, and suicide bombers.
Increasingly, the world is acknowledging America's Kerry-style clunkiness and just bypassing the US Britain said no to war in Syria. Russia took over big-box diplomacy. China assumed the pivot role in Asia in every way except militarily. (They're working on it.) The Brazilian president simply snubbed Obama, canceling a state visit over Snowden's NSA revelations. Tiny Ecuador continues to raise a middle finger to Washington over the Assange case. These days, one can almost imagine John Kerry as the wallflower of some near-future international conference, hoping someone—anyone—will invite him to dance.
The American Century might be said to have lasted from August 1945 until September 2001, a relatively short span of 56 years. (R.I.P.) John Kerry's frantic bumbling did not create the present situation; it merely added mirth to the funeral preparations.
There is however one important positive factor in this depressive story. Maybe out of all these negative developments US foreign policy can eventually be completely overhauled and new policies developed which not only take into consideration the rapidly changing state of the world but which also reflect more accurately the principles on which the country was founded. As Socrates wrote:: "the greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be".
EU-Digest
2/24/13
John Kerry embarks on sweeping tour of Europe, Middle East
America's top diplomat John Kerry began his first official trip as secretary of state on Sunday, a marathon get-acquainted tour of America's closest allies in Europe and the Middle East.
A plane carrying the news US secretary of state and his team took off from Joint Base Andrews outside Washington at around 7:15 am local time (1215 GMT).
Kerry will visit the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar from February 24 to March 6.
The first stop will be London, where Kerry will meet with senior British officials, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters Friday.
Kerry travels on to Berlin where, in addition to meeting Germans, he will encounter his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, for a tricky exchange at a time when Moscow and Washington are at loggerheads on many issues.
Read more: John Kerry embarks on sweeping tour of Europe, Mideast - FRANCE 24
A plane carrying the news US secretary of state and his team took off from Joint Base Andrews outside Washington at around 7:15 am local time (1215 GMT).
Kerry will visit the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar from February 24 to March 6.
The first stop will be London, where Kerry will meet with senior British officials, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters Friday.
Kerry travels on to Berlin where, in addition to meeting Germans, he will encounter his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, for a tricky exchange at a time when Moscow and Washington are at loggerheads on many issues.
Read more: John Kerry embarks on sweeping tour of Europe, Mideast - FRANCE 24
1/3/13
US Foreign Policy: Chuck Hagel on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and China - by Robert Nolan
In recent weeks, the debate surrounding the potential nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense has taken on epic proportions. Despite the media storm, little has been said about how Hagel would actually manage the defense of the United States and take on the global challenges we face in the year ahead.
In an interview I conducted with the former senator from Nebraska and chairman of the Atlantic Council for the Great Decisions in Foreign Policy television series now airing on PBS, Hagel outlined a number of his views on American foreign policy. The interview, "excerpts by clicking on the link below", was conducted on the sidelines of the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago.
Read more: Chuck Hagel on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and China - World Report (usnews.com)
In an interview I conducted with the former senator from Nebraska and chairman of the Atlantic Council for the Great Decisions in Foreign Policy television series now airing on PBS, Hagel outlined a number of his views on American foreign policy. The interview, "excerpts by clicking on the link below", was conducted on the sidelines of the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago.
Read more: Chuck Hagel on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and China - World Report (usnews.com)
7/19/09
Guardian.uk: Who's in charge of US foreign policy? - by Mark Weisbrot
For the complete report from the guardian.co.uk click on this link
Who's in charge of US foreign policy? - by Mark Weisbrot
The current stand-off in Honduras, in which the coup government headed by Roberto Micheletti is refusing to allow the return of elected president Manuel Zelaya, is raising questions about who is in charge of US foreign policy for the hemisphere. Divisions have been noticeable from early on in this administration, for example at the summit of the Americas in Trinidad last April. Obama went to the summit with the idea of presenting a new face to the rest of the hemisphere and was immediately undermined by his adviser and director for the summit, Jeffrey Davidow. Fortunately, Obama ignored his advisers and proceeded along a diplomatic path.
When the coup occurred on 28 June, the first statement that came out of the White House was a major blunder. Although the US and international press gave Obama a pass, the diplomatic community could hardly help noticing that the White House issued the only official statement in the world that didn't have a bad word to say about the coup when it happened. Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Obama has remained silent in the face of repression by the coup government. They have shot and killed demonstrators, closed down radio and TV stations and arrested journalists. This week a trade union leader and a political activist were murdered. Violence and the control of information are their main weapons of the dictatorship. They will use them much more freely if Obama maintains his silence. This is not Iran, where denunciations from the US serve to discredit the opposition. This is a government that is highly dependent on the US for aid, commerce and moral support – and that the whole world has condemned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)