CAN THE GLOBAL MAJORITY NOW EFFECTIVELY CONTAIN THE USA?

Is the effort of the USA and its allies to mold the world to its self-conceived image benign or malign, and if it is malign, are those affected now in a position to safeguard themselves against it?

There are various opinions regarding the motivations of the political, media, military and intel elites of North America in relation to that nation’s foreign policy. That it is interventionist is hopefully an uncontroversial statement. Whether the motivations, and the consequences, of the pursuit of that interventionist foreign policy are benign or malign are the subject of this commentary along with the question of what, if anything, should be done about them.

We have seen many regime change wars rage since 9/11. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria the chief of them. There have been some successes in the short term in some cases while long term failures are more pronounced. Both predicated of course on what the precise goals were for these operations. For some, merely ‘taking out’ certain leaders/regimes may well have been enough of a success without any kind of nation-building project being successful afterward. Simply neutralising the threat to the USA or West in general as perceived by them being enough.

Coming after most of these regime change wars we had the intervention in Syria of Russia which arguably stopped the western regime change project there in its tracks. A few years previously Russia’s red lines had been crossed in Ukraine (as it had been previously mentioned in a cable in 2008 from William Burns, present head of the CIA). Meanwhile relations with China were constantly being soured leading to ever worsening relations on that front.

Previous to all of the above were eras when several generations of North American elites who engaged in interventions as a matter of routine wherever it was perceived that U.S. interests were under threat. These interventions were initiated almost as a matter of course. A great many of them took place in Latin America but on the European continent they were also the norm and widespread. The justifications used for all U.S. interventions and indeed all those carried out by the elites of the entire western world create a platform for action that amounts to a special, self-awarded dispensation. 

What are the justifications used for this self-awarded dispensation?

In essence they amount to the buzzwords we are all familiar with:

Democracy

Freedom

Human Rights

In the name of all three above the USA and its allies have given themselves the right to intervene in whatever way they see fit globally where any one of these elements is considered missing to any degree. In effect the USA and its allies act as if they have been tasked by some higher power to command and discipline any and all others they conceive to require correction and restructuring. No ultimate authority (except conceivably a creator god) is required to provide the authority to do this. Those insisting on these processes presumably see the entire activity as a service to humanity (quite possibly by some as a service to their god).

You may conceive the activity above to be an urgently required on, an essential civilising effect that should be carried out with as much haste as possible. Presumably, if you have this opinion, you conceive of a far better world in prospect if it is carried out with maximum efficiency and without delay. It appears clear that those who are to any degree within the group effecting these changes at least pay lip service to this goal, even if they are not among the most dedicated zealots to the cause, the true believers.

But what of those who point to the democratically-elected leaders who were overthrown by these elites, or the dictators they managed to put in their place and who they supported because ‘they are OUR dictators’, the means by which U.S. self-interest could be served. It is this self-interest (usually called ‘national interests’) which alloys the fine sentiments spoken of, of building a better, more democratic, freer world where human rights are rigorously enforced for all. The track record on this score is patchy at best. And the motivation to gain advantage for self rather than engage in selfless good for all must inevitably play some, and possibly a very large part of the enterprise.

Yet despite the flaws inevitably introduced by human nature into the proceedings we see the robust and always determined agenda to continually promote those policies that bring an enormous degree of western intervention worldwide. The virtuous circle constantly talked of where democracy, freedom and human rights will result from these interventions will quite predictably (based on recent experience) never be squared. Yet the interventions appear intended to go on essentially forever. Or until factors arise which bring them to a halt. What might these factors be?

This brings us to the question framed in the title of this commentary. Can those who have had their internal structures, whether political, military, religious or social, interfered with through western government initiatives for generations mount a challenge to this process and succeed in halting it completely? There have been very few instances where this exceptionally difficult task have achieved any success until now. Arguably China has been most resilient in this respect since the victory of the Chinese communist party over Chiang Kai-shek’s forces. With only very few successful attempts to initiate subversive elements within the resulting Chinese society it has managed to prevent any substantial regime change efforts.

In fact the rise of China as the single predominantly successful and economically powerful nation highly resistant to western interference has created a foundation upon which others now have an opportunity to stand. This is a process we see actively occurring on an almost daily basis as ever more nations seek a closer relationship with the BRICS group which acts as a central hub for nations looking to protect their national interests from the interventionist forces of the West. This trend, toward strengthening the barriers to western desires to intervene and manipulate the sovereign concerns of nations, for whatever justifications, appears to be one that will continue to grow. Now, with the recent ending of the Petrodollar agreement between Saudi Arabia and the USA another stick the U.S. elites have used to beat nations into line, is broken. 

Th days of western dominance, sought for whatever reason, benign or malign, is clearly now progressively ending and no reversal of this movement of nations to protect themselves is in prospect. The situation appears likely to grow progressively worse for the ambitions of the western powers to hold onto the remaining weapons of manipulation, persuasion and intervention they continue to employ. The continued use of these weapons is in fact motivating nations to even greater speed in their pursuit of protection against them. Therefore we can begin to make out the ultimate destination in which we are headed; to the full quarantining of western efforts to manipulate nations that now have the strength to protect themselves to the full from  such activity.