FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

America’s Baleful Worldwide Pressure

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

The overweening arrogance of the United States in conduct of its foreign relations is evident throughout the world. A morning glance at international headlines will usually light on some intriguing gobbet of  Washington conceit, generally a lecture, a scolding or a spiteful threat intended to ensure that lesser nations keep firmly in their place, subservient to the imperatives of an empire that is increasing its military dominance day by day.

Hillary Clinton lectured the world from Phnom Penh recently, declaring that  “the nations of the [South China Sea] region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats, and without use of force.”  Which prompts the question: in that case why does the United States of America, which has no justification for any presence in the South China Sea (7,000 miles from the US mainland), have a vast fleet, including carrier strike groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, roaming the area?  And it doesn’t explain why the US refuses to ratify a UN Treaty relevant to the China Sea which expresses the “desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea.” That is, to put it mildly, total humbug.

As the Asia Times noted about American military expansion in Asia, “The US also intends to station four new Littoral Combat ships and increase ship visits and base surveillance aircraft in Singapore. In addition, upgraded military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei will support already existing US plans with Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.” And the super-oaf Defense Secretary Panetta, never one to ignore an opportunity to increase international tension, declared to Fox News during a visit to Vietnam that “The more I am out here, the more critical I view this region in terms of our national defense and the defense of the world . . .  we need to be rightly focused on playing a bigger role here in the Asia Pacific.”  — “Rightly”?  What right does America have to poke its martial snout into the South China Sea?

US confrontation with China looms closer, and it’s hardly the fault of the Chinese whose position, in the words of  Xinhua, is that “the tree craves calm but the wind keeps blowing.”  But there’s one thing certain:  the Chinese tree will whip back if the Washington wind increases its intensity.  As the Chinese well understand, the world in general craves calm, but the out-of-control US military machine, in an expansionist wave of unprecedented energy, is hell-bent on domination.  One unintended development of this is closer cooperation between China and Russia, as shown during President Putin’s visit to Beijing in June when he described China as “a good partner on the world platform,” — contrasting markedly with Moscow’s relations with Washington.

No sooner had the Soviet Union collapsed twenty years ago than New York’s vultures of greed descended on Moscow and ripped off what was left of a shattered economy, creating Russian clones of the western financial swindlers who caused the economic crises in the US and elsewhere. Then Washington joined in and encouraged former states of the USSR to join NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance specifically constructed to fight against the Soviet Union and whose military commander is always a US general. This expansion was intended to send a menacing message to Russia which, although in a difficult economic condition with sizeable social problems, was and is a proud and noble nation. And the message was clear: the baleful influence of Washington is being continually extended.

This influence is strikingly evident in Georgia, which in 2008 attacked the border region of South Ossetia where Russian speakers (the majority) were attempting to make their allegiance clear. (It had been an autonomous area even during the time of the USSR.)  In 1992 Russian, Georgian and South Ossetian leaders had agreed to a tripartite peacekeeping force of 500 soldiers each, and South Ossetia’s elected President, Eduard Kokoity, asked Moscow to recognize the republic’s autonomy. In 2002, deliberately and directly challenging Moscow, the Pentagon initiated a ‘Train and Equip Program’ to arm and train the Georgian military, and in 2005 arranged a “Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program  to broaden capabilities of the Georgian armed forces.”  Israel was deeply involved, and Haaretz reported that  “Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili yesterday praised Israel for its role in training Georgian troops and said ‘Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers,’ Yakobashvili, who is Jewish, told [Israeli] Army Radio in Hebrew.”

With such backing, Georgia had the confidence to invade South Ossetia, which resulted in Russian counter-attacks in which Georgian forces were defeated. George Bush then gave the country a billion dollars and continued to be its strong supporter, going so far as to arrange a ‘Charter on Strategic Partnership’, which “recognizes Georgia’s important contributions to Coalition efforts in Iraq as demonstrating Georgia’s potential as a net provider of security.” The Iraq debacle didn’t stop Georgia sending over 900 soldiers to Afghanistan under US command. (16 have been killed, the latest dying on July 29,  and its battalion commander in December last year had both legs blown off.  Georgia is the only country to be increasing — almost doubling — its troop numbers while all others are reducing theirs.)  In a blatant display of arrogant international meddling last August the US Senate passed a resolution declaring that South Ossetia is a province of  Georgia  “illegally occupied by Russian troops who must get out and return to Russia.”

The webs, dens and spearheads of US influence along Russia’s perimeter are wide, complex and sinister and have two main objectives: to threaten Russia militarily and curtail its economic growth, especially in the energy sector.  It’s the Cold War all over again, and President Vladimir Putin has taken a tough stand against the new imperialism, which has resulted in much vilification of him in US and British media. During the Obama-Putin get-together in June there was no meeting of minds, with Putin refusing to endorse US policies and not one public exchange of a smile. Russia isn’t storm-struck Poland, and Putin is determined to stand up for his country.  This tree is not for bending in the Washington wind.

But there is one tree that is looking decidedly leaf-torn by the US storm, and that is Pakistan, where Washington’s malevolence includes the recent threat by Hillary Clinton to destroy the economy by sanctions if Pakistan and Iran build the gas pipeline which is so vital for Pakistan to reduce power cuts. It doesn’t sound much in international terms, but it’s a vitally important matter for Pakistan whose citizens endure extreme temperatures that can be alleviated only by constant supply of electricity but who suffer from up to 18 hours a day without it.  Power cuts are having dire economic and social consequences.

Pakistan has suffered immense domestic damage since the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan in the fatuously-named Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001.  They caused thousands of militant fanatics to flood into Pakistan where they began a campaign of mayhem, encouraging home-grown extremists in a tide of psychotic savagery.

There had been only one suicide bombing attack in Pakistan before the invasion (and that was an Egyptian citizen aiming at his own embassy in 1995), but since then there have been 311 attacks and 10,262 people killed. The first was in 2003, and the psychos’ campaign really got into its stride in 2007 when the foreigners’ war in Afghanistan intensified and drone attacks in Pakistan increased. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, on average one assassination drone attack has struck Pakistan every four days during Obama’s presidency. Out of some 2,500 people killed in the strikes only 126 could be named. All the others were apparently ‘suspected terrorists.’  At least 350 civilians have been killed (some estimates are double that) of whom over 160 were children. Now there’s a tree bend for you.  Why not kill a kid for Enduring Freedom?  Sure, they deserved calm in their lives, but the cyclonic explosions of Hellfire missiles blasted them to eternal tranquility. In small pieces. That’s the way the wind blows.

Brian Cloughley’s website is www.beecluff.com

 

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail