The Tragedy of U.S. Foreign Policy


November 30, 2007

By Joseph E. Fallon



Fourth World Journal
, Volume
7, Number 2, November 2007


Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has actively
pursued a foreign policy inimical to the national
interests of the United States. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan,

Washington seeks
an empire, not a republic. And it is pursuing empire
through a sovietization of U.S. foreign policy. This
occurred because Democrats and Republicans have been
seduced by three false beliefs.


  1. History proves the United States is the only successful
    politico-economic model for the rest of the world to
    emulate.

     
  2. As
    the world`s most powerful nation, the United States has
    an obligation to insure global peace and economic
    development by imposing its model on the rest of the
    world.

     
  3. The
    rest of the world desires to have the United States
    impose its model on them.


Acting on such beliefs, Washington adopted a Marxist
attitude toward countries, cultures, and economies.
Including its own. All are viewed as anachronisms;
treated as obstacles to the spread of American democracy
and free markets worldwide. Therefore, they must be
revolutionized, standardized, and anesthetized. Each
must be made non-national in form, capitalist in
content. The affinity with Marxism extends to promoting
the withering away of the state. Political borders,
including those of the United States, are being
abolished through free trade agreements, while the
sovereign powers of states are being expropriated by
international bureaucracies. All are preconditions for
what Washington calls globalization, which mirroring
Soviet foreign policy advocates that a powerful
ideological state imposes a single political and
economic order on the rest of the world. Capitalism
replaced socialism as that ideal order and the United
States supplanted the Soviet Union as the historic agent
of change. Both attempts only unleashed political and
economic havoc upon the world. 


Contrary to assurances from Washington, outsourcing,
privatization, and free markets restructured global
economies for the benefit of the few, not the many. As a
result noted Joseph E. Stiglitz, former Chief Economist
and Senior Vice President of the World Bank, in The
Overselling of Globalization:
[PDF]
"globalization has been accompanied by increased
instability; close to a hundred countries have had
crises in the past three decades. Globalization created
economic volatility, and those at the bottom of the
income distribution in poor countries often suffer the
most."


The United States was not immune from this volatility
and has experienced an economic blowback. By encouraging
the relocation of U.S. manufacturing abroad Washington`s
policies have deindustrialized the U.S. economy. As a
result of such relocations, coupled with outsourcing of
U.S. jobs and the flood of illegal aliens into the
domestic job market, more and more U.S. workers are
being made redundant. In some sectors, overtime pay is
being abolished. Unions are being busted. Pension
contracts are being broken. Income disparity is
widening. The Social Security System faces financial
crisis. The health care system is going bankrupt. The
education system is failing more and more families.
Social safety nets established after the Great
Depression are being cut. The national debt is
ballooning and exceeds the amount of U.S. dollars in
circulation. The middle class, on which representative
government rests, is being crushed under the weight of
wars, taxes, and institutionalized corruption. And
things are only getting worse for Americans.

As
Dr. Stiglitz observed


"some
of the more ardent advocates of globalization advance a
position not far different from social Darwinism; tough
luck for the cultures that cannot survive in the face of
the forces of globalization; they should be left to die,
and the quicker the death the better"
.


This belief is shared by Washington. For it, the only
"cultures"
that count are those of transnational
corporations. And cultures that "should be left to
die"
include America`s. Proposals, at this point
trial balloons, are advanced on merging the United
States with Mexico and Canada in a North American Union
and replacing the U.S. dollar with a new currency,
called the amero. Laws and treaties are being
selectively enforced. The U.S. Constitution is being
shredded. Habeas corpus? Property rights? They have
effectively been abolished. Freedom of speech is
attacked. Dissent is criminalized. Freedom of assembly
proscribed. Freedom of religion is guilt by association.
Transparency and accountability in government are
ignored. To all intents and purposes, the separations of
powers, and checks and balances on government have been
annulled. Under deregulation, health, safety, labor, and
environmental laws are being eviscerated. This
deconstruction of classical Western political
liberalism, foundation of U.S. liberties, is what
Washington is aggressively exporting to the rest of the
world under the name of globalization.

To
advance this process, the U.S. government resorts to
wars, sanctions, and color-coded revolutions to topple
uncooperative governments—Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia,
Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Lebanon—and dismember
inconvenient states—the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Serbia.

In
doing so, Washington ignores the potential political
blowback. It is oblivious to how its tactic of
dismembering states can also be applied to a number of
U.S. allies—Brazil, Canada, Chile, Georgia, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, and the U.K.—or even to
the United States, itself, in the case of the Aztlan
movement.  

It
is now targeting Saudi Arabia and Iran for regime change
and dismemberment even though this could destabilize the
world`s oil markets and trigger a worldwide recession.
Under the pretext these interventions are to liberate
Muslims, especially Muslim women, from the oppressive
rule of Islamic fundamentalists, Washington seeks to
control the oil and politics of both countries by
exploiting religious and ethnic secessionist movements
in each.

On
July 10, 2002, Richard Perle, then Chairman of the
Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, sponsored a
presentation by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corporation
analyst and former


executive editor of Lyndon LaRouche`s `Executive
Intelligence Review`
, who called

for
the U.S. to seize the oil wells in Saudi Arabia`s
Eastern Province and proclaim that region an independent
state.

In
2003, in An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,
a Random House book which he co-authored
with David Frum, a fellow Neo-Con and former speech
writer for President George W. Bush, Richard Perle,
championing Murawiec`s proposal, urged Washington to
support independence for Saudi Arabia`s Eastern
Province.


That year another Neo-Con, Max Boot, senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations and contributing editor
of "The Weekly Standard" envisioned a similar
fate for Saudi Arabia with the United States

"occupying the Saudi`s oil fields and administering them
as a trust for the people of the region."


Iran also became an official target for dismemberment in
2003. The Pentagon met with Mahmud Ali Chehregani,
leader of Southern Azerbaijan National Awakeness
Movement. While Mr. Chehregani resides in the United
States his opposition movement operates in Iran. He
advocates the secession of "southern" Azerbaijan
from Iran and its unification with "northern"
Azerbaijan, the former Soviet Republic.

According to the Washington Times,
"Mr.
Chehregani said in an interview that his group was
working with other Iranian ethnic minority groups — such
as the Iranian Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen and Arabs — to
form a common political front that could challenge
Teheran."
It reported "Mr. Chehregani said he had
more than 50 meetings with senators and congressman,
State Department officials, the White House to further
his cause."

In
October 2005, the American Enterprise Institute, a
Neo-Con think tank, convened a conference chaired by a
prominent proponent of regime change, Michael Ledeen,
entitled

"A Case for Federalism?"
It was repudiated by exiled Iranian
opposition groups in the United States as a call for the
dismemberment of Iran along ethnic lines.


That same year, responding to Mr. Chehregani`s call to
form a common political front, Iranian


Arab, Azeri, Baluch, Kurdish, and Turkmen

organizations assembled in London where they issued a
manifesto calling on Teheran to restructure the state
along the lines of ethnic federalism. The U.S. State
Department then met with the Iranian secessionists to
support their demands for autonomy, while continuing to
condemn similar secessionist movements in neighboring
Turkey, Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

On
February 23, 2006, the Financial Times

reported
the U.S. Marine Corps confirmed its
intelligence unit was actively analyzing the potential
military benefits ethnic secessionist movements in Iran
could hold for U.S. foreign policy.


This was followed by the April 17, 2006 issue of The
New Yorker
which published the article by
Pulitzer-awarding winning journalist, Seymour Hersh
entitled

"THE IRAN PLANS: Would President Bush go to war to stop
Tehran from getting the bomb?"
In it, Mr. Hersh wrote: "If the order
were to be given for an attack, the American combat
troops now operating in Iran would be in position to
mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure
bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As
of early winter, I was told by the government consultant
with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units
were also working with minority groups in Iran,
including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the
southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast….The broader
aim, the consultant said, is to `encourage ethnic
tensions` and undermine the regime."


Then came the publication of

"Blood Borders"
by Ralph Peters in the June 2006 issue of
Armed Forces Journal
. "Armed Forces
Journal
is the leading joint service monthly
magazine for officers and leaders in the United States
military community…providing essential review and
analysis on key defense issues for over 140 years."

Publication confers authority and respectability on the
views presented. In "Blood Borders", the author
champions national independence for Azeri, Baluchi,
Kurds, Pushtuns, and Arab Shia. He advocates redrawing
the borders of virtually every country in the Middle
East, not just Saudi Arabia and Iran, and provides his
readers with the following map of his Pax Americana for
the Middle East.


Influenced by thinkers such as Murawiec, Perle, Boot,
Ledeen, and Peters,

U.S. foreign policy was radicalized
. It now fosters
perpetual wars to enhance U.S. power and profits. First
there was Afghanistan, then Iraq and Somalia, and next
is possibly Iran. The aim of globalization, therefore,
is not democracy and free markets, but U.S. world
hegemony. And the means to hegemony is coercion and
subversion at home, as well as, overseas. But the policy
isn`t working well. Washington`s actions in the Middle
East have enraged Muslims and alienated much of the
world. As a result, the post-911 support and good will
of most of the international community has been lost.
Washington is not winning its wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Its ability to unilaterally impose its will on
other countries is evaporating. Overextended militarily,
financially and psychologically, its empire is reaching
the breaking point. And the rest of the world knows it.


Washington`s foreign policy has become the very
definition of "waste", "futility," and
"self-destruction."
As the fates of Athens and Rome
attest, no republic that acquires an empire remains a
republic. And the price citizens pay for an empire has
always been the loss of their liberties. Washington`s
decision to protect the United States by waging imperial
wars abroad confirms the wisdom of that great American
philosopher, Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is
us!"


About the Author



(Joseph E. Fallon is a freelance writer/researcher who
resides in Rye, New York. He lived in Egypt where he
pursued his advanced degree in Middle East studies and
has traveled to Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and
Tajikistan. He received his Masters Degree in
International Affairs from Columbia University`s School
of International and Public Affairs and is a member of
the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Harriman
Institute, Columbia University.)