America in the 21st Century: Solidarity and The Middle East
By Daniel M. Miller
Written August 30, 2003
The 20th Century encapsulated an enlightened age of growth and dominance for the United States. WWII left the old European powers and empires in shambles, setting forth the Cold War and laying the foundation for the age of American order and the Pax Americana. In seeing the future, one has to observe and reminisce of the past. Churchill’s words were a summation of terror by the powerful, and at the time, were directed at the Axis powers, specifically the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. In the 21st Century, Churchill’s poignant statement can be directly applied to the War on Terrorism and U.S. policies throughout the Middle East.
The U.S., being the major player and leader in the world economy, quite often uses its own interests and standards to judge other nations and force them into compliance (whether justly or unjustly). Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), the G8 (economic conference) and various other important entities are often used as leverage to pressure and on some occasions, completely deny various nations of joining, conducting business and properly running national affairs with the sovereign right any nation justly deserves.
Many researchers and avid observers make mention of globalization and its causes in poor nations. The Middle East has been influenced by U.S. business as well as initiatives by military and social projects. The rebuilding of Kuwait after the first Gulf War was primarily accomplished by the U.S. and American business. In most rebuilding scenarios, the United Nations would help run such projects and maintain goals for such a large undertaking. However, largely due to the U.S. corporate agenda of profit and influence, the U.N. was virtually left aside.
The same scenario is currently taking place in the rebuilding of Iraq. Companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin amongst others are all handed large contracts for hefty amounts of money rather than using U.N. programs and agendas to fulfill the need of reconstruction as well as other social concerns. Many of these companies and corporations have strong ties with the U.S. government and elected officials.
After the first Gulf War concluded, Iraq was placed under strict U.N. programs as well as some less noteworthy U.S. restrictions regarding trade. The “food for oil” program was initiated so that Iraq may feed its people and successfully run its economy with guidance, control and supervision from the U.N. The U.S. kept a watchful and wary eye on Iraq and its dealings. It is also important to note that the U.S. did apply strict no trade policies with nations attempting to support or trade with Iraq. Items such as medicine, food, and other important goods were not allowed to the poor and sick people of Iraq. The U.S. implementing such policies is in direct violation of U.N. and international laws. It also creates much hatred amongst the Iraqi citizens towards the U.S. government.
Some observers would attempt to legitimize the U.S. policy for the sake of future endeavors and actions; in order to help Iraq remove and contrast its past actions and crimes. That would be a legitimate argument only if the U.S. observed international and U.N. laws, as well as hypocritically was not the largest buyer of Iraqi oil in the food for oil program. Such actions and policies by the U.S. only breed sanctimonious feelings of hate and resentment in the Middle East. Judicious reasoning and examination of such actions and agendas by the U.S. would concur the “national interest”/“do it alone attitude” the U.S. propels into the International realm.
The U.S. holds nations to such standards with regard to international law, economic principles, treaties and moral ideals that itself does not comply with. With utter disregard of U.N. agreements, laws and codes, the U.S. hypocritically dismisses itself from subjugation due to the fact of economic reliance, as well as the “might makes right” notion. Such rallying calls of the Third World are heard elsewhere, but fall to deaf ears, blinded eyes and nationalistic hearts of the American patronage. One must search for or see through biased information in order to hear such truthful accounts of control and manipulation.
For the average, unaware U.S. citizen, September 11th was a shrewd wake up call. Quite often international policies and dealings are not in the center of news debate nor are they widely spoken with terms of public opinion or input. The average observer would recognize why such an atrocity would occur and search for its reasons so that it may not mount again as a threat. But sadly, due to media biases, misinformation and political agendas, such answers are not expedited or discussed. Generalizations, catch phrases and overstated threats are divulged instead by U.S. media outlets, politicians and government officials to lessen the burden of security worries as well as to easily propel the action or operation for future endeavors with the unwitting consent of the citizenry.
With U.S. intentions of “order” and “stability” which can easily be replaced with “control” and “national interest”, the Middle East is a fire-bed of anti-American sentiment. Iraqi sanctions, the plight of the Palestinians, Islamic tendencies and U.S. support of Israel, all empower a misled Arab realm. The military and economic backing of Israel is more of a side note, when in fact, most of the Arab world would be satisfied with both states in duel existence. Such notions have been reasserted via meetings, treaties and attempts at solutions. It is only the likes of fundamentalists which would breed satisfaction in the destruction of Israel which is usually cast upon the entire Arab world by the U.S. media. Such fundamentalists exist in each nation in the Middle East and therefore rise to the forefront of the issue.
Iraq has enabled accompaniment for Arabs to associate U.S. hatred, the movement of Palestine as well as fundamentalist thoughts all to the evils of the U.S. and its beneficiary, Israel. The long and well documented aggressions and crimes of Israel are just as suitable as the suicide bombers and other demonized Arab crimes, yet Israel is the recipient of $3 billion in U.S. aid, while the Arab populations are scolded and attributed to terrorist acts. Even groups like Hezbollah, al Quada, Hamas, etc., represent a religious outlet for such aggression, yet are the only methods of fighting back to their oppressed notions and processes. September 11th exhibits to the U.S. such beliefs; rather that it is a cause for Arab collaboration with various goals and attainments, rather than just hatred of the U.S. as well as Islamic fundamentalism as a whole. By and far, the U.S. policies in the area are unequal, interest oriented, as well as hypocritical. Without future remedies and change to policies, the U.S. is set to suffer more damaging fate such as those of September 11th.
The world's leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia, contributes 25 percent of the global supply. Saudi Arabia has also been associated with various human rights abuses, as well as funneling U.S. aid and moneys into terror based organizations, Islamic groups and charities. It is also well noted and documented that Saudi Arabia had deep connections with channeling money to the Taliban of Afghanistan. This would all be insignificant in the minds of many due to our national interest for oil, but for most viewing the current situation in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is considered a viable ally and trading partner of the U.S. which is quite irrefutable and grotesque.
In response to the September 11th attacks, the U.S. began its War on Terrorism. Afghanistan and the Taliban were first on the list to pay for the U.S. vindictive response of might. Al Quada camps, bases and fighters had been linked to Afghanistan and therefore were set to be bombarded and removed. Along with the attacks, the U.S. began vying for global acceptance in its war on terror, although in most of the world, such responses, costs and actions are not legitimate and cannot be successfully undertaken. The U.S. stepped up its homeland security as well as enacted many legislative policies to remove civil liberties which would purport security measures.
Once the Taliban was successfully removed, other enemies, threats and “evil doers” were cast into the forefront. Iraq became a larger target of U.S. force and aggression. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, nor did any one specific action occur to enable an invasion or regime change, yet the U.S. found it legitimate to undertake this action regardless of U.N. approval and without any significant international belief. The U.S. left the Iraqi regime intact after the first Gulf War and could have easily attacked on September 10, 2001 with the same level of clout that forced their agenda in the current invasion. All the while, Saudi Arabia was a “stoic ally”.
The War on Terrorism also includes the perceived varying levels of threats by the Americans. For example, al Quada is obviously top on the list, yet a localized group like Hamas or Hezbollah which fight for Palestinian power and existence are not identified in the same level of threat to American interests. So who is the War on Terror really for? The safety of the world, our way of life and good versus bad - as President George Bush would have you believe-or to simply remove the threat away from our homeland and displace such problems for others elsewhere?
The U.S. is easily capable of upholding international laws, doctrines and agreements, yet chooses to ignore them in their war on terror. The U.S.’s long history of aggression is well documented and in the 21st Century is continued. Historian, Charles A. Beard called this agenda “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Most rational observers would casually notice, fighting wars to create stability and peace is cyclical and repetitive, therefore a goal that is unattainable.
In looking towards the future, U.S. policy in the Middle East is contrived, unbalanced and obviously hypocritical. The U.S.’s dismissal of U.N. multi-national efforts to create and lead to more substantive results is perplexing. U.S. policy is founded upon the notion of acting in its own national interest at all times and going along with others when possible (if not conflicting its own agenda).
In order to find remedies for such global problems, equality, fairness and across-the-board compliance is necessary from all parties involved. For those of us here at home there are many ways to create and help build a brighter, more peaceful future. Awareness leads to choice, which is praised by free will. There is still hope for humanity yet.
References and Notes
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer
Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World by Noam Chomsky
End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century by Charles Kupchan
The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone by Joseph F. Nye
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, How we got to be so hated by Gore Vidal
“Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy” From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 issue by Michael Scott Doran
“America Adrift: Writing the History of the Post Cold Wars” From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2001 by Michael Hirsh
The Council on Foreign Relations was used for reference.
Written August 30, 2003
"The rich and powerful have every right to demand that they be left in peace to enjoy what they have gained, often by violence and terror; the rest can be ignored as long as they suffer in silence, but if they interfere with the lives of those who rule the world by right, the 'terrors of the earth' will be visited upon them with righteous wrath, unless power is constrained from within." - Winston Churchill
The 20th Century encapsulated an enlightened age of growth and dominance for the United States. WWII left the old European powers and empires in shambles, setting forth the Cold War and laying the foundation for the age of American order and the Pax Americana. In seeing the future, one has to observe and reminisce of the past. Churchill’s words were a summation of terror by the powerful, and at the time, were directed at the Axis powers, specifically the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. In the 21st Century, Churchill’s poignant statement can be directly applied to the War on Terrorism and U.S. policies throughout the Middle East.
The U.S., being the major player and leader in the world economy, quite often uses its own interests and standards to judge other nations and force them into compliance (whether justly or unjustly). Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), the G8 (economic conference) and various other important entities are often used as leverage to pressure and on some occasions, completely deny various nations of joining, conducting business and properly running national affairs with the sovereign right any nation justly deserves.
Many researchers and avid observers make mention of globalization and its causes in poor nations. The Middle East has been influenced by U.S. business as well as initiatives by military and social projects. The rebuilding of Kuwait after the first Gulf War was primarily accomplished by the U.S. and American business. In most rebuilding scenarios, the United Nations would help run such projects and maintain goals for such a large undertaking. However, largely due to the U.S. corporate agenda of profit and influence, the U.N. was virtually left aside.
The same scenario is currently taking place in the rebuilding of Iraq. Companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin amongst others are all handed large contracts for hefty amounts of money rather than using U.N. programs and agendas to fulfill the need of reconstruction as well as other social concerns. Many of these companies and corporations have strong ties with the U.S. government and elected officials.
After the first Gulf War concluded, Iraq was placed under strict U.N. programs as well as some less noteworthy U.S. restrictions regarding trade. The “food for oil” program was initiated so that Iraq may feed its people and successfully run its economy with guidance, control and supervision from the U.N. The U.S. kept a watchful and wary eye on Iraq and its dealings. It is also important to note that the U.S. did apply strict no trade policies with nations attempting to support or trade with Iraq. Items such as medicine, food, and other important goods were not allowed to the poor and sick people of Iraq. The U.S. implementing such policies is in direct violation of U.N. and international laws. It also creates much hatred amongst the Iraqi citizens towards the U.S. government.
Some observers would attempt to legitimize the U.S. policy for the sake of future endeavors and actions; in order to help Iraq remove and contrast its past actions and crimes. That would be a legitimate argument only if the U.S. observed international and U.N. laws, as well as hypocritically was not the largest buyer of Iraqi oil in the food for oil program. Such actions and policies by the U.S. only breed sanctimonious feelings of hate and resentment in the Middle East. Judicious reasoning and examination of such actions and agendas by the U.S. would concur the “national interest”/“do it alone attitude” the U.S. propels into the International realm.
The U.S. holds nations to such standards with regard to international law, economic principles, treaties and moral ideals that itself does not comply with. With utter disregard of U.N. agreements, laws and codes, the U.S. hypocritically dismisses itself from subjugation due to the fact of economic reliance, as well as the “might makes right” notion. Such rallying calls of the Third World are heard elsewhere, but fall to deaf ears, blinded eyes and nationalistic hearts of the American patronage. One must search for or see through biased information in order to hear such truthful accounts of control and manipulation.
“But this Americanized global system nonetheless generated a great mass of discontents. And these have-nots blamed the nation they rightly identified as the shadow power behind the system. Not surprisingly, the deepest anger came out of the Arab world, where regimes have been, as a rule, least open to American-style globalization and political ideals. Washington also seemed uninterested in pushing its ideals in that part of the world. At the same time as the United States promoted democracy and open systems in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, it let Saddam Hussein stay in power, betrayed the Shi`ite rebellion in Iraq's south, and preserved the corrupt Kuwaiti and Saudi royals whose oil America coveted. The extremists in the Arab street saw this hypocrisy clearly and used it to demonize the United States. This is not meant to blame Americans in the least for the insane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; no reasonable person could do that. But it should help Americans understandthe suicidal rage behind the attacks.”
For the average, unaware U.S. citizen, September 11th was a shrewd wake up call. Quite often international policies and dealings are not in the center of news debate nor are they widely spoken with terms of public opinion or input. The average observer would recognize why such an atrocity would occur and search for its reasons so that it may not mount again as a threat. But sadly, due to media biases, misinformation and political agendas, such answers are not expedited or discussed. Generalizations, catch phrases and overstated threats are divulged instead by U.S. media outlets, politicians and government officials to lessen the burden of security worries as well as to easily propel the action or operation for future endeavors with the unwitting consent of the citizenry.
With U.S. intentions of “order” and “stability” which can easily be replaced with “control” and “national interest”, the Middle East is a fire-bed of anti-American sentiment. Iraqi sanctions, the plight of the Palestinians, Islamic tendencies and U.S. support of Israel, all empower a misled Arab realm. The military and economic backing of Israel is more of a side note, when in fact, most of the Arab world would be satisfied with both states in duel existence. Such notions have been reasserted via meetings, treaties and attempts at solutions. It is only the likes of fundamentalists which would breed satisfaction in the destruction of Israel which is usually cast upon the entire Arab world by the U.S. media. Such fundamentalists exist in each nation in the Middle East and therefore rise to the forefront of the issue.
Iraq has enabled accompaniment for Arabs to associate U.S. hatred, the movement of Palestine as well as fundamentalist thoughts all to the evils of the U.S. and its beneficiary, Israel. The long and well documented aggressions and crimes of Israel are just as suitable as the suicide bombers and other demonized Arab crimes, yet Israel is the recipient of $3 billion in U.S. aid, while the Arab populations are scolded and attributed to terrorist acts. Even groups like Hezbollah, al Quada, Hamas, etc., represent a religious outlet for such aggression, yet are the only methods of fighting back to their oppressed notions and processes. September 11th exhibits to the U.S. such beliefs; rather that it is a cause for Arab collaboration with various goals and attainments, rather than just hatred of the U.S. as well as Islamic fundamentalism as a whole. By and far, the U.S. policies in the area are unequal, interest oriented, as well as hypocritical. Without future remedies and change to policies, the U.S. is set to suffer more damaging fate such as those of September 11th.
The world's leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia, contributes 25 percent of the global supply. Saudi Arabia has also been associated with various human rights abuses, as well as funneling U.S. aid and moneys into terror based organizations, Islamic groups and charities. It is also well noted and documented that Saudi Arabia had deep connections with channeling money to the Taliban of Afghanistan. This would all be insignificant in the minds of many due to our national interest for oil, but for most viewing the current situation in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is considered a viable ally and trading partner of the U.S. which is quite irrefutable and grotesque.
In response to the September 11th attacks, the U.S. began its War on Terrorism. Afghanistan and the Taliban were first on the list to pay for the U.S. vindictive response of might. Al Quada camps, bases and fighters had been linked to Afghanistan and therefore were set to be bombarded and removed. Along with the attacks, the U.S. began vying for global acceptance in its war on terror, although in most of the world, such responses, costs and actions are not legitimate and cannot be successfully undertaken. The U.S. stepped up its homeland security as well as enacted many legislative policies to remove civil liberties which would purport security measures.
Once the Taliban was successfully removed, other enemies, threats and “evil doers” were cast into the forefront. Iraq became a larger target of U.S. force and aggression. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, nor did any one specific action occur to enable an invasion or regime change, yet the U.S. found it legitimate to undertake this action regardless of U.N. approval and without any significant international belief. The U.S. left the Iraqi regime intact after the first Gulf War and could have easily attacked on September 10, 2001 with the same level of clout that forced their agenda in the current invasion. All the while, Saudi Arabia was a “stoic ally”.
The War on Terrorism also includes the perceived varying levels of threats by the Americans. For example, al Quada is obviously top on the list, yet a localized group like Hamas or Hezbollah which fight for Palestinian power and existence are not identified in the same level of threat to American interests. So who is the War on Terror really for? The safety of the world, our way of life and good versus bad - as President George Bush would have you believe-or to simply remove the threat away from our homeland and displace such problems for others elsewhere?
The U.S. is easily capable of upholding international laws, doctrines and agreements, yet chooses to ignore them in their war on terror. The U.S.’s long history of aggression is well documented and in the 21st Century is continued. Historian, Charles A. Beard called this agenda “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Most rational observers would casually notice, fighting wars to create stability and peace is cyclical and repetitive, therefore a goal that is unattainable.
In looking towards the future, U.S. policy in the Middle East is contrived, unbalanced and obviously hypocritical. The U.S.’s dismissal of U.N. multi-national efforts to create and lead to more substantive results is perplexing. U.S. policy is founded upon the notion of acting in its own national interest at all times and going along with others when possible (if not conflicting its own agenda).
In order to find remedies for such global problems, equality, fairness and across-the-board compliance is necessary from all parties involved. For those of us here at home there are many ways to create and help build a brighter, more peaceful future. Awareness leads to choice, which is praised by free will. There is still hope for humanity yet.
References and Notes
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer
Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World by Noam Chomsky
End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century by Charles Kupchan
The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone by Joseph F. Nye
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, How we got to be so hated by Gore Vidal
“Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy” From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 issue by Michael Scott Doran
“America Adrift: Writing the History of the Post Cold Wars” From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2001 by Michael Hirsh
The Council on Foreign Relations was used for reference.
posted by Daniel M. Miller | 1:04 AM
<< Home