THE PRESENT WORLD WAR & THE WEST’S CLAIMS FOR IT

Western elites claim they are fighting for what they call a ‘rules-based order’ and for ‘western liberal values’. By their words, they claim two things. One, that they adhere to certain important rules inferring they take a wholly ethical and moral stance regarding these and two, that their system of societal governance is at the apex of any comparable systems.

Leaving aside for a moment whether these elites can be trusted to deliver an honest statement of their motivations and self-assessments, how well do these two assertions stack up?

The accuracy of the claim by western elites that they adhere to and promote a rules-based order is very much dependent on the viewpoint one takes of the many military interventions conducted by the USA, UK and their allies over the past several decades.

Starting with the quasi-legal attack upon and invasion of Afghanistan and continuing with that on Iraq, stated to be illegal by the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan and a further attacks on Libya and Syria, the latter being the most covert of them all, how should we rate these as based upon any global rules-based order?

International law, which it is to be hoped is still recognized as the most widely recognized source of global rules, cannot be said to have been followed by the West. International law as enshrined in the codes of the United Nations states that only when a nation has been attacked by another nation does it have the right to respond in kind. In almost every case where the USA, UK and its allies attacked other nations this was unarguably NOT the case. Their actions were illegal and not based upon any rules agreed by our world’s community of nations. In fact, they clearly contravened each relevant rule and law.

Western elites stating that they want a rules-based order and that they are fighting for these rules to apply globally must then mean that these are new rules of their own concoction and do not refer to the rules which they have so clearly broken. It must surely follow then that these new rules align well with their regime change options regarding military interventions. These new rules which they seek to enforce globally are certainly framed in a manner that corresponds with the West’s self-interest.

Western elites have long had a patrician and colonialist attitude to those nations they consider their inferiors. At times these attitudes could also be termed racist and indeed imperialist. Yet western elites continue to repeat narratives that harmonize with their past sins such as the use of the word ‘crusade’ by George W. Bush in reference to the so-called ‘War on Terror’.

The two main protagonists who promote their superiority in this way are the USA and UK. With a history of genocide and slavery between them and strong colonialist attitudes toward the rest of the world, it is they who are at the forefront in the attempts to modify the rest of the world. There is surely, at the very least, something somewhat awry with this picture painted by them of purely ethical motivations.

A glance at the USA’s activities over the past hundred years in Latin America with its fomenting of coups, participation in assassinations, invasions and constant interference do not exactly bring to mind a nation dedicated to any rule regarding sovereignty. And if the preservation of the sovereignty of nations is not to feature in these rules that western elites talk of, why we might ask is it excluded?

The rules being talked of, that form the basis of a world order newly created by the West, if they do not include the preservation of sovereignty, begin to look very much like a means to create and maintain a dictatorship of the West, a means to control others rather than set them free as the elites of the West wish to imply.

Western elites clearly wish to impose what they call western liberal values on the rest of the world and must bypass national sovereignty to do so. They appear to claim this as some form of God-given right. To claim this right they use humanitarian concerns and rights to do so. This new “crusade” has many parallels to the previous crusade mounted by western nations against the Arab world in medieval times. In those earlier crusades, the ‘enemy’ was not only located in the so-called ‘Holy Land’ to recover Jerusalem from Moslem control, but they also had other targets including the Moors (Muslim inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and Malta) and the Slavic tribes of northern Europe.

‘The first Crusaders had a variety of motivations, including religious salvation, satisfying feudal obligations, opportunities for renown, and economic or political advantage. Later crusades were generally conducted by more organized armies, sometimes led by a king. All were granted papal indulgences.’ (Wikipedia)

It must be strongly suspected that the West is once again conducting the same kind of semantic subterfuge employed to gain acceptance of previous activity illegal under international law. This in combination with its undoubted military power in order to effect changes for its own benefit and self-interest. Post 9/11 the USA and UK in particular have set in motion a surge of activity both overt and covert to eliminate any and all forces that are in any way counter to their interests. Suitably deceptive phrases have been concocted to cover the fact that the forces unleashed were counter to international law. The elites controlling these activities have therefore determined to eliminate certain laws and replace them with their own set of self-serving rules.

As far as the western liberal order is concerned this appears to simply allow for the licence of activity required to destroy any societies not conforming to the required degree of weakness suitable to guarantee western dominance over them. Through undermining the strength of national governance from below this obviates the need to expend the kind of blood and treasure seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the costly expense of high-tech weaponry as in Libya. The war against Syria is an intermediary case where a relentlessly callous campaign requiring less expense continues to this day. Now, in more straightened circumstances, other and less expensive means of weakening and degrading targets is being deployed, and the promotion of ‘western liberal values’ is among them.

The war being waged by western elites on all those whose systems of governance are not conducive to the furtherance of western needs is framed as a selfless endeavour, devoid of any self-interest, idealistic at its heart and conducted with utmost purity. This false, black and white framing of the West and its war against others is utterly corrosive to the general public perception of what a truly decent world scene ought to look like. The values concerned suck and the so-called rules now being advocated are mere justifications for the continuance of quite brazen international crimes by western elites and their allies.