Tag Archives: foreign policy

Trump’s foreign Policy: An end to American hegemony?

23 Jun

Writing in The American Conservative, Andrew Bacevich notes a post-Trump nostalgia for a world order characterized as, “Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft.” He goes on to note that such a view leaves out a few things:

Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist, rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere—many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; “extraordinary rendition,” torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.

A bit later:

Prior to Trump’s arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America’s purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed the “Free World” and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended.

Rather

Trump’s conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment’s narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.

Trump doesn’t see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase “America First” attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.

In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially, he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary response to a TV host’s charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer.

Concerning the Trump resistance:

Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully on their convictions. They are inspiring.

Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1957 when it is not.

Advertisements

Chomsky Agrees with Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

29 Jan

Paul’s Foreign Policy Stance Divides Many G.O.P. Voters – NYTimes.com

30 Dec

But Mr. Paul’s national security positions draw raves from many veterans, students and others who believe his noninterventionism would curtail a dangerous trend toward military adventurism and strengthen America’s influence and prestige while diverting resources to pay down the national debt. In interviews at Paul campaign events this week, many said they embraced his national security proposals, rather than reluctantly accepting them.

via Paul’s Foreign Policy Stance Divides Many G.O.P. Voters – NYTimes.com.

America’s Waning Influence Has a Silver Lining – NYTimes.com

2 Nov

…the relative decline of the United States as an international force also comes with a silver lining. For decades, the United States has been the global rescuer of last resort. It is a role that has brought significant costs, both financial and human.

The last few months may well end up being an inflection point, in which the United States, though easily still the world’s leading power, no longer has quite the responsibility or the burden it once did. The pattern has been evident in the Arab Spring, with the American military playing mostly a supporting role in Libya, and now in the European financial crisis, with Asian money coming to aid the Europeans. …

In many ways, the situation is a natural evolution of the campaign promises made by Mr. Obama in 2008, when he vowed to turn away from the Bush administration’s more unilateral approach.

via America’s Waning Influence Has a Silver Lining – NYTimes.com.

Ron Paul Interview Transcribed

7 Sep

“The Founder’s were right: non-intervention, friends and trade with people, more prosperity, and peace.”

Here’s a clip of an interview with Ron Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly:

He’s trying to change history, and so are we. He gave this interview after he placed well in the Iowa straw poll, but got little notice in the MSM. Starting at about 1:10 into the video, Kelly asks Paul whether or not the media is ignoring him:

Paul: Sure. Yeah they are, and we need to ask them why? What are they afraid of? Well, we’re certainly in the top tier. We did well in Iowa and we have a good organization. We can raise money.

But they don’t want to discuss my views because I think they’re frightened by us challenging the status quo and the establishment. When it comes to foreign policy, monetary policy, the entitlement system, because my views are quite different from the other candidates. They’d just as soon us not get the coverage that the others are getting and they will concentrate on establishment type politicians.

Kelly: There seems to be a narrative emerging that you can’t win and therefore they’re giving you back of the hand treatment. There was an editorial in The Wall Street Journal that said “He has no chance to win.” This despite the fact that you are 152 votes within the top spot in the Iowa straw pole. In fact out of almost 17,000 votes cast you were a 150 votes or so from number one. But The Wall Street Journal and others that you can’t win. Why? Why do they believe that?

Paul: Well they want to believe it and they want to promote an idea. They don’t want to promote information because they’re having a couple poles where I either came in first or second when you match my name up against Obama. Because my votes really compete.

“I’m trying to change the course of history.”

This would be a reason why the Democrats don’t want me to win either. Because I can compete against Obama. His base is very unhappy with his expansion of the war, and his lack of interest in protecting civil liberties. And therefore they don’t want to hear from me either. But I’ve done quite well. I’m quite willing to match my name up against Obama any time of the day.

Kelly: It’s got to be somewhat frustrating for you. I mean to come in second and be as close as you were to winning in Iowa, not to mention the polling that you’ve been doing, which is fairly good. To have this kind of treatment in the media, does this disturb you?

Paul: Well it disturbs me. I don’t use the word ‘frustrating’ because I anticipate and I know how the system works, and I know what I’m trying to do, because not like I’m just trying to win and get elected.

I’m trying to change the course of history and our history in this country hasn’t been good for the last 100 years, whether it’s our drift into managing an empire, the destruction of our currency, the deficits that have been run up, the climax of the dollar reserve standard. This is big stuff and nobody else is addressing this.

So in spite of the shortcomings of the reporting of this I write if off a bit, because they don’t have any idea about the significance of the idea of the monetary system and what’s going on with the Federal Reserve.

“The peace candidate is always a very strong candidate.”

But the people, grass roots America, are startin’ to wake up. Millions of people are reading about the Federal Reserve and understanding how they bail out their friends. Trillions of dollars. Give a third of all that money they used in the bail-out, give it to foreign banks. People realize this even though the media, generally speaking, they don’t understand it, they don’t ask the right questions. And if they do understand it they don’t want to get the secret out of how the system that we have protects the special interests, the big corporations, the corporatism that runs our society. Continue reading