-Caveat Lector- Dear Ken and Populists, When a capitalist corporation like Knight-Ridder brings up the question of whether or not the US should police the world, the little hairs on your neck should begin to tingle. The first thing you deduce, is that K-R doesn't profit from having the US military either steal, or guard some other country's natural resources. For example, you would not see Exxon or Texaco buy an ad asking the same question " Should America Police The World?" ====================== > Ken Humphrey wrote: > > This article is highly pertinent to the U.S. insistence on its superpower > world leader role, including dominating the earth from space. Ken > Share This Article With A Friend > Featured Views > > Published on Thursday, April 12, 2001 > Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services > Should America Police The World? > by Mark Weisbrot > > The standoff with China has been resolved, but it has raised some serious > and long-overdue questions about our foreign policy in the post-Cold- War > era. > This first one is: does the United States really need to police the whole > world? This is a diversion. The question itself sets us off in the wrong direction. Here's why. We don't "police" the world. This would imply that someone else is doing something wrong and we need to straighten them out. This is an abject lie. The United States military is the enforcing arm of America's corporations. The world's nations are the colonies to US/EU's economic colonialism. With that in mind, one gets a more accurate picture of what " Policing " really means. It means doing what the Roman Legions did. Keep everyone in line so the Roman Aristocracy and their corrupt politicians could continue to rape the known world. > Because if we are going to remain committed to this job, we can > expect more involvement in incidents of this kind, not to mention wars and > other violent conflicts. Diversion. This does not make clear the fact that WE are responsible for many of the wars by overthrowing democratically elected governments who's leadership are not under our control. > > Most Americans do not find this role any more appealing than the idea of > going around to all the bars in Chicago on a Saturday night and breaking up > fights. "We have enough problems here at home," is normally the prevailing > sentiment among the citizenry when the question of overseas intervention is > raised. This is true. But the reason Americans see things this way is because of articles like this one. > > But our foreign policy establishment -- the politicians, think tanks, and > many intellectuals and journalists -- remains attached to the idea of > America ruling the world. Diversion. This statement is true. But would you like to guess which group is MOST responsible but not mentioned? Wouldn't you think that corporate, finance, and the super rich Elites would get an honorable mention here? After all, it is THEY who fund and finance all the above. > > "The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the > [Persian] Gulf, Why did we do that? > mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi > Arabia, Why do we need to protect Saudi Arabia? We only get about 17% of our oil from them. It's Europe and Japan who are dependent on cheap Saudi oil. > and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Strait," says President Bush's > National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. > > Do we really want that job? Diversion. It's the wrong question again. The right question is why are WE paying with blood and treasure to protect the European and Japanese economies? > > For half a century Americans were told that policing the world was a > strategic and moral imperative: we were "saving the world from communism," > and defending our own national security. On this pretext Washington > overthrew democratically elected governments, installed and financed some of > the most bloodthirsty regimes in world history, went to war in Vietnam, and > even supported genocide -- from Indonesia to Guatemala -- when our leaders > found it politically convenient to do so. Ahhh. Veritas. > > Looking at the world in 2001, it's hard to believe that we were really > fighting communism all those years. Today China is the only remaining > communist country with any power, and it is not only a major (if lopsided) > trading partner but also the largest recipient of US foreign investment in > the developing world. Corporations never really cared about Communism. They always did business with the Evil Empire when there were profits to be made. What corporations didn't like was the competition for world markets presented by State run capitalist enterprises who they could not control. > > Ironically, that may be what saves us from a new Cold War with China. There > are just too many lucrative business deals that could go sour. China may not > be a rich country, but it has one of the world's fastest growing economies > and a fifth of the Earth's population. Nothing new here. > > The Clinton administration worked hard to get China into the World Trade > Organization -- it's not quite there yet -- so that US telecommunications, > financial services, and other big corporations could break into these > potentially huge markets. Manufacturers such as Nike and Timberland are > happy with their Chinese production facilities, where workers put in 70-hour > weeks for wages of 22 cents an hour, and are not likely to strike or try to > form an independent union. > > This was the Bush Administration's dilemma: some of their biggest corporate > supporters would find it difficult to forgive them if they blew all these > prizes over this one incident. On the other hand, there are still > influential people who would appreciate a new Cold War, for all the purposes > that the old one served. This is true. In addition, I would inform you ( where this article doesn't,) that Prescot Bush, the Moron in Chief's uncle, has been the point man in China for Western corporations since the Nixon era. He and Henry Kissinger are making millions as the people to see if you want to do business with the Chinese government. Sweet! > > Besides providing an excuse for the crimes of empire, the Cold War was also > a rationale for our enormous military expenditures. This was America's > unique form of industrial policy, a way to subsidize our leading industries > such as aircraft and computers. To the tune of OVER THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS! Do you suppose we could have universal health care, and decent schools with that kind of money? > > A number of political commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush's recent > unfriendly gestures toward Russia, North Korea, and China (before the > current crisis) might be related to his efforts to fund his own high-tech > subsidy: $60 billion dollars for a missile defense system. Ken alluded to it at the beginning. Missile defense is not about defending us from missiles. It's about providing a cover for the militarization of space. NO COUNTRY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO MILITARIZE SPACE. This will surely guarantee war. No nation could allow ANY country to dominate the world from space. It is suicidal. They will stop it by any means. The drive to dominate space is the most dangerous thing we could try to get away with doing. America's elites are drunk with arrogance and real power. They know that no one entity can stop them. EXCEPT FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. > > But right now -- at least as regards China -- the balance is still in favor > of more immediate business interests. Hence the Administration's delivery of > a "non-apology apology" to resolve the standoff, despite the embarrassment. This was the funniest media schtick I've seen in a long time. Every commercial media outlet was telling me that we didn't apologize REALLY. Now I may not be too bright, but I do think that saying you are " very sorry " TWICE could be construed as an apology. But hey, that's just me. Poor Rush Limbaugh. He actually had to say out loud on the radio, that we really fooled those dummies by MAKING THEM THINK WE REALLY APOLOGIZED when we really didn't mean it. OH MY GAWD! > > The best way to prevent future incidents would be to stop looking for > trouble all over the world. We would never allow a foreign plane with > sophisticated surveillance equipment to fly 70 miles from coast of Florida, > gathering intelligence on our military. Yet Washington insists that it has > the right to make 200 of these kinds of flights each year to spy on China. > > You can't have it both ways -- unless you want to claim the status of > Emperor, and pay the price to enforce it. We are already paying more than > $1000 each year -- for every man, woman, child, and infant -- to the > Pentagon, while we forgo urgent needs such as prescription drug coverage for > our senior citizens. That's a good Liberal. > > While the American people bear the costs and risks of maintaining an empire, > the benefits do not trickle down. It's time we began to downsize the grand > ambitions of our leaders. OK job for a Liberal. But the real issue is capitalism. An economic system based on the real necessity to ' grow or die ' is COMPELLED to maintain empire. It has no choice. Resources become scarce in one part of the planet and then the corporation must move on to another. Markets become quickly saturated with goods due to unnecessary and wasteful competition, and new markets must be made available to sell to. The problem is Capitalism. The place where Liberals fear to enter. They always stop just short of ever actually solving these issues. Bill > > Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research > (www.cepr.net) in Washington, DC. > > ### > > Share This Article With A Friend > > Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service > providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community. > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
