After giving itself the Monroe doctrine which sanctuarized the American continent (especially the North) and prohibited interventions in European Affairs, the United States of America developed their federation in isolation from the events of the rest of the world. Conflicts in Mexico and Cuba emphasized that these countries were part of their vital and untouchable zone of influence.

This policy was carried out fairly consistently throughout the 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th. Let’s recall that President Wilson was re-elected in 1916 using the slogan “He kept us out of war “.

First encroachments to this policy appeared with the emergence of economic strength in the form of expansionism, above all to develop US trade in Asia, China and the Philippines. Also, with the discovery of oil and its use for motor vehicles, they realized the strategic interest that control of this raw material would represent.

But it is the same Wilson who first developed the vision of an America exporting its democratic model for people’s liberation and peace. After the entry into war against Germany in 1917 and the victory of 1918 he worked to establish a new international balance although the Congress remained opposed to an excessive openness of American diplomacy.

President Roosevelt also had a policy of neutrality until he was forced to enter into the Second World War at the end of 1941 following the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor. American policy changed radically with the end of this war: from isolationist it became expansionary, from neutral it created a doctrine of interference essential to the resistance to the Soviet bloc.

Already between the two world wars American companies were involved in oil exploration in the Arabian Peninsula. But it was in 1945 with the Quincy Pact between the U.S. Government and the Saudi ruling family that a first important fault of kind was committed: a nation founded on a constitution, with democratic rules and independent courts sealed an alliance with a theocratic regime, applying a governance fundamentally in opposition to Western values. And this agreement valid sixty years was renewed for a same period in 2005.

After this first faux pas many others were committed, relying in large part on the doctrine of dominoes: by all means the fall of one coin into the Soviet fold should be avoided because otherwise a whole series of other States would also fall. This was the justification of the US war in Viet Nam and Cambodia fell into horror shortly after the defeat of the Saigon regime; but the dominos did stop there. Even after the dissolution of the USSR and of the Warsaw Pact this theory remained rooted in the American diplomatic unconscious. Any regime that might be at odds with the Pax Americana may be categorized as one of the rogue countries that threaten peace in the world. This is why what is improperly called terrorism must be prevented by supporting authoritarian regimes that repress their opponents. And this is what gave and still gives rise to unnatural alliances, such as the Quincy pact. Better safe than sorry!

A corollary theory governs the conduct of American diplomacy: as all that is contrary to the interests of the United States is intolerable, it is legitimate to oppose it by all means. One will have difficulties to know what is good for America but the decision goes as for the baseball umpire who answered the question of objective criteria to determine when there is strike or ball: “it’s as I decide myself.” Paradoxically this policy is not explicitly declared by the Americans but the McCarthyism of the early fifties and the Patriot Act one half a century later are its irrefutable expression. If you are not with us you are against us!

All of this is also tinged with a zest of idealism or naivety for spreading the American model as a universal ideal. One defends his interests but justifies it by a need for evangelization. And let’s not believe in a hypocritical or cynical posture as this isn’t the very nature of the American who is – generalizing grossly – rather friendly, emotional and inconstant, but sincere at all times. This may explain why Americans in general do not understand criticisms against them. Even the intellectual left circles (this is a pleonasm) who reflexively never stop criticizing their own Government know to shut up when it comes to the safety of the nation. The much criticized George W. Bush was comfortably re-elected late 2004 even though the Iraqi and Afghan situations were in rather poor condition. Let us remember his September 2001 question: why do they hate us so much?

While Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union the Taliban were supported, trained and armed by the United States without any consideration being made to the motivations and goals of these Mujahidin. That their values are exact opposite of those of a liberal country based on the rule of law did not matter: the usefulness in the short term led to forget the fundamental contradictions. One can even bet that at this time nobody in the U.S. Government was addressing this issue.

The United States have saved Europe from chaos twice, and the peoples of the old continent need to be grateful to them. But this past role doesn’t give the foreknowledge of what is needed for the future. And their diplomatic errors accumulate, be it by supporting autocratic regimes in Spain, Portugal, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, and Panama, helping future dictators to take power in Chile in 1973 or in 1951 in Iran (the enemies of my enemies are my friends), closing its eyes to the funding and arming activities of the Irish IRA (the friends of my friends are my friends) or the Taliban, or exposing to destabilization unpleasant regimes such as Cuba or Serbia – but not China because of the balance of power. In some cases the consequences of their actions remained benign or nil as in Portugal or Spain. But in the Near and Middle East and to a lesser extent in Central America a poisoned inheritance weighs on societies which, although relieved of some tyrants, remain disoriented and ungovernable, leading them to civil war. Of course the United States are not sole and unique responsible for these facts, but their quasi-systematic commitment in the wrong direction contributed dramatically to a no-better world.

A diplomacy based on a myopic utilitarian perspective leads to regrettable mistakes for which it can be too easily said later that they weren’t wrong in the context of the time. Is it necessary that a State, as benevolent as it would like to be, assumes a role of a global policeman, and, due to the impossibility of knowing what is right, will almost always be wrong?

The fight against terrorism must remain the task of police and justice; it will not be overcome by neither creating a state of virtual war, nor by designating as a terrorist everyone who behaves in unpleasant and dangerous ways. Guantanamo and the Patriot Act are historical scandals. A society poised with solid values does not need this, it knows how not to sacrifice its soul for the benefit of an unlikely security. Fanatical at all costs of its own democratic norms, of the immediate satisfaction of its emotional needs, and of absolute and full control, a society falls quickly into excesses and thus loses the values it claims to respect. Who indeed knows what these values are?

Let’s not blame Americans for making their hands dirty, but ask them to exercise moderation and discernment, as for example to not engage in a conflict without a profound reflection on the manner with which it can be concluded. It was easier in the good old days: the purpose of war was to conquer a territory and pillage it, not to arise as a savior or as the grand organizer.

In the present World cases abound where one would appreciate that a clear and coherent US strategy with a longer-term horizon would be defined and implemented:

Egypt: is the democratically elected Morsi regime deserving support while, as the German NSDAP in 1933, he was quick to remove any consensual approach in the direction of a country that needs so many different things. What is to be done with new governments in countries with basic americanophobia? Why not, for once, be content of not doing anything? Idem for Tunisia and Libya where it remains impossible to know who is friend or not.

Iran: even though Israel has good own reasons to designate Iran as the regime to kill, an armed conflict is unlikely to bring any improvement to the situation. Knowing this, will the United States know to refrain from producing bogus evidence about Iranian nuclear military activities as they did for Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction?

Syria: each party being the current and potential torturer of the other, is any one deserving anything more than humanitarian relief (I know that they are enemies but I do not know who and where are my friends)? The purpose of an intervention cannot be limited to the fall of President Bashar Al-Assad. Isn’t it more important to know what should be the Syrian project for the next 2, 5 and 20 years?

North Korea: in similarity with the Monroe doctrine we can consider that this country is in the Chinese zone of influence and that it is their role to ensure order and peace in this region. American involvement has so far been avoided and would be catastrophic if it came into confrontation with the Chinese positions. South Korea and Japan are well aware of this.

Cuba: the temptation will be great to play the big arms as soon as the brothers Castro will be buried. Will Cubans finally have the opportunity to determine themselves, even if passing through few years of chaos, or will they be treated as a minor republic to be put under meager perfusion Haiti like?

Pakistan: This huge country appears dangerous because it is unknown. Does this make it a target for drones controlled by irresponsible geeks in air-conditioned rooms resembling a game saloons? The Pakistanis know that their use of even a small atomic bomb would result in their destruction, so they won’t. Otherwise what are the problems that this country is presenting?

Afghanistan: it is time to leave and put the key under the doormat. Unfortunate women and poor society, they have no prospects! After twelve years of intervention, who can be proud of what result?

Israel: the commitment of the international community, and in particular of the United States, that its existence could not be compromised is a necessary and indisputable guarantee. That being so, it is necessary that Israel must resolve its problems of common life on the same territory, especially since the Palestinians now enjoy similar guarantees. The AIPAC lobby in America would do better to propose solutions to the conflict rather than asking for belligerent speeches and acts. The billions of dollars paid to Israel by the United States each year could be much better invested.

In reviewing these ongoing or potential conflicts it can be seen that a return to a strict doctrine Monroe could be beneficial for the United States and welcomed by the rest of the world. The only ones who could protest are those who got corrupted; that would be pretty comical to reveal them in that way. Outside their territory the Americans have commercial interests to represent, and they have no legitimacy to impose anything else. This means that the Congress and the Government should refrain from intervening everywhere and by all means, from giving lessons to the rest of the world, and from trying to enforce their laws, even tax ones, outside of their territory. This will cost much less lives and dollars, although this may cause problems for the military-industrial complex which will have to retrain into cultural, recreational, and health businesses.

Better safe than sorry!

If you are not with us you are against us!

Why do they hate us so much?

These are three foolish expressions that should disappear not only from the American rhetoric, but also from its deepest culture.

Unfortunately this will likely remain wishful thinking.

 

 

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !