One wonders what the US political leaders want. The incumbent lives in this world, playing an ultra-realist game: extra-judicial executions in maybe 70 countries, drone attacks; minimizing US losses, maximizing direct hits at what he sees as the problem, concrete identified individuals, not concrete unidentified conflicts. He has neither the moral nor the intellectual courage to do that.
The challengers, with one exception, are focusing on one issue: down with the welfare state. Ron Paul, the libertarian, adds: down with the warfare state. He has registered Vietnam-Afghanistan-Iraq and the next in line, Iran-Syria, as unwinnable and unaffordable for a bankrupt economy. Young Republicans and others flock to him, but his discourse is too unusual. Warfare, not welfare makes sense. This has to do with the relation to conflict, a three-headed problem: attitude, behavior, contradiction. The USA wants an attitude of love for the USA, military response to evil people who do not and act on that, and contradiction, incompatibility are outside the thinkable. The deep culture of good vs evil and Armageddon for the latter take over.
Well, does it? The reader is invited to look at the scheme below. There are three columns: a list of 15 conflicts in which the USA is currently involved–some say embroiled–,a list of what this author sees as reasonable solutions, nothing that radical, well-known formulas; self-determination, human rights, federations, communities.
And the third column is what the USA tends to do. Violence, like Libya for the first conflict. Wars, intervention, bases, military coups. That may work with solid local elite support. But today that is missing almost all over and the net result is brutal, naked power that greases the downward slope. Obama thinks he can solve it by being sneaky; the Republicans have not yet discovered that their favorite world of admiring, obedient elites is gone; probably forever.
15 CONFLICTS: CONSTRUCTIVE-DESTRUCTIVE US FOREIGN POLICIES
| CONFLICTS | CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE | DESTRUCTIVE, NEGATIVE |
| FINANCIALECONOMY
CRISIS |
Encourage local saving banksPublish M2 Check Fed Reserve
Tax speculation Drop bonuses Outlaw basic need speculation Democratic control of central banks; mixed world currency |
More F than Real growthMore money than value
Serving loans not people Countries in debt bondage Globalization through privatized central banks |
| WAR ON TERRORISM | Identify their just goals Publish Atta Who did 9/11? | Extrajudicial execution SOC-Drones Covert war |
| US-ISRAEL vs ARAB-MUSLIMSTATES | A two states solution, andA Middle East Community MEC Israel and 5 Arab neighbors
1967 borders with revisions Palestine recognized, and Org for Sec Coop Middle East |
Tail wagging dog:Israel wagging USA;
AIPAC wagging Congress Judeo-Christ’n anti-islam Danger: Extreme US anti-semitism |
| LIBYA | Self-determination for parts, federalism with democracy | Continued anarchy Unitary state illusion |
| SYRIA | Self-determination for parts,federalism with democracy | Attack; SCO response?split Syria, rule parts |
| IRAQ | Self-determination for parts,Federalism with democracy
Kurdish autonomies community |
Withdrawal only:no rebuilding,
no compensation |
| IRAN | Open high level dialogue,Conciliation for 1953,
Human rights for Iran |
Attack, SCO response?speculation in oil,
and bio-fuel |
| PAKISTAN | Pashtun autonomy, drop Durand Self-determination in Kashmir Indian-Pakistan-Kashmir parts | Extrajudicial execution SOC-Drones Covert war |
| AFGHANISTAN | A Central Asian Community Federation Local autonomy
Nonaligned, no bases OIC-UNSC joint peacekeeping |
Withdrawal only;no rebuilding,
no compensation
|
| KOREA | Peace Treaty with North Normalization USA-North
Korea as nuclear free zone |
Marginalizing NKUS-SK military exercises
Breaking agreements |
| CHINA | Open high level dialogue,Mutual learning in economics
Civil and economic rights |
Encircling, sub-sat-navy Economic exploitation within and between both |
| JAPAN | Japan in NE Asian Community Good relations to USA, APEC+
USA pulls out of Okinawa |
Impeding conciliation Keeping Japan as client
Subverting A9 |
| AFRICA | Welcome African Unity!Build with China E-W highway! | AFRICOM Military intervention |
| LATIN AMERICA | Welcome CELAC integration Equity Latin-North America | Military intervention Supporting coups |
| WORLD | All human rights conventions National self-determination
Dialogue of civilizations Stronger UN, with parliament |
Civil-political only Unitary state models
Western universalism US exceptionalism |
That third column draws not only abhorrence, but also the yawn of “more of the same”, when will they ever learn? They want to go down?
So, look at the second column of efforts to identify the conflict, dialogue with the parties, bridging what sounds like legitimate goals–by law, human rights, human needs–they are pursuing.
No attempt will be made here to justify the reasoning behind column Two. But imagine that US politics followed such lines and that the world followed that USA. What kind of world would we live in?
Strong regions, like Latin America, Africa, OIC (Organization of the Islamic Community, today
Cooperation) and East Asia is one aspect. They have their own projects, not necessarily to copy the USA. They will trade with each other, support each other, regionalize and not repeat the UN formula of a security council with veto powers. No veto.
Where would the USA belong? In the whole world like everybody, but also in a region with trade partners Nos. 1 and 3: Canada, Mexico (the USA is No. 1 for both of them). The basis is there, use it.
Democracy and human rights, of course. But federations first in multi-national countries, then democracy in each part. Majority rule in Iraq means shia rule, majority rule in Syria means sunni rule; two neighboring countries. As federations with democracy in each part, neutrality would be a good option in order to avoid internal divisions.
There are countless details like that in the scheme above. But the point is the USA, that ambiguous, violent, innovative, generous country. Go for something like column 2 options and a non-imperial USA would surge, up, up , up, in the hearts and minds, all over. There is that love for the US longing for a US to attach to, delusioned by Obama. A little distance in that direction would help already.
Friends of the USA: help the USA find a better place in the world.
Johan Galtung
9 April 2012
1 Comment
RE: What Do You Want USA, Up or Down?
Heaven helps those who help themselves. They firstly must come back home.