Amorality behind self-serving character of US foreign policy
ALLOW me to comment on the letters by Iqbal Randeree and Zaakir Said.
America’s foreign policy posture under President Donald Trump lies in tatters. He utterly failed to intimidate North Korea, isolated his country from the global political arena and threatens to enforce regime change in Iran.
He verbally abused Pakistan, a crucial ally in the war against terror, conveniently forgetting that this country suffered immensely in attempting to fight terrorism.
Between 2002 and 2006, terrorism cost the Pakistani economy $119 billion (R1.47 trillion). From 2001 to 2008, 24 000 people lost their lives. In the aftermath of 9/11, 49 000 were killed in acts of terrorism.
The policy of US domination of the world, as nation builderin-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned, if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.
US policy in the Middle East, Asia and Africa has failed to accomplish its objective and has been counterproductive. Military solutions trampled over negotiations.
Counter-insurgency produced insurgents. The US identified anti-communism as its principal guide to foreign policy during the Cold War, but similar policies continued after the Soviet Union’s collapse and disintegration.
If the presentations appear one-sided, it is because US administrations appear one-sided and have exhibited patterns that caused international catastrophes.
Interference in internal affairs of nations and direct US involvement have not brought peace and stability to the world.
The New World Order warlords control the world. The New World Order means nothing but the absolute, unconditional, unrestricted power of the US.
Needless to say, America’s leaders strive mightily to obscure this. At the time the New World Order was created it was interpreted to mean the rule of international law.
The end of the Cold War meant that nations would no longer be able to play the great powers off against one anther.
There was only one power in the world, the West. And the West, as everyone knew, stood for international law. Hence nations would have to resolve their differences in accordance with civilised norms.
The UN would finally come of its own. However, the rule of international law is the last thing the US has in mind. As always, the UN is handy only when Americans are able to control it. If they cannot, they disregard it.
On one hand, there is the vast pool of humanity which has to conform to contemporary Western notions of “tolerance”, “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” On the other hand, there is “the enforcer” from Washington.
On the one hand we have “tolerance” that tolerates everything except intolerance of tolerance.
On the other hand, we have the US, ready to use its military might to enforce the rule of “tolerance.”
The Middle East has become a victim to the seductions of the New World Order.
US policy in this region follows a multi-pronged geopolitical strategy, the crucial element of which is the use of Islam as a battering ram.
It is the amorality, standing as they do between good and evil, of people like Trump which explains the brutal, immoral and viciously self-serving character of much of American foreign policy today.
An important difference between today’s Western duplicity and those of the World War II warlords is to be found in the hypocrisy in which allied brutality clothes itself.
American policy in Middle East, Asia and Africa has failed