Is the US Still the Indispensable Nation?

[unhappycamper]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/244424/is-the-us-still-the-indispensable-nation/

Is the US Still the Indispensable Nation?
El Pais, Spain
By Emilio Menendez del Valle
Translated By Trisan Franz
12 August 2014
Edited by Nathan Moseley

Obama is facing an important dilemma in foreign affairs: Is the United States still the "indispensable nation" or is the concept and doctrine put forth by Clinton and Madeleine Albright beginning to fade? His situation is exacerbated by two recent facts. One, The New York Times-CBS survey from June that shows 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's leadership — including a third of Democrats — and feel deeply worried that continued involvement in Iraq could lead to another long and costly conflict, not to mention the three quarters of those surveyed who agreed that the long war did not compensate for the higher cost of living. A Pew poll from fall of 2013 indicated that — for the first time since 1964 — the majority of the country felt that Washington should concern itself with its own international issues and leave other countries to handle their affairs as they may.

The president is faced with public opinion that is radically against military intervention abroad and an increasingly introverted electorate focused on all things domestic, economic and social. It’s possible to suggest that, with the United States still being the great power it is, albeit in relative decline, North Americans fall into a certain contradictory position when, as the polls show, the majority believe in the global leadership of their country — the indispensable nation? — but they aren't the least bit interested in getting tied up in another war. Is it possible to lead globally without military force?

That brings us to the speech the president made in May at West Point Military Academy and the supposed wake-up call for foreign affairs in Washington. We remember that in 1945, after World War II, a new world order was born around the U.S., an order that has today turned multipolar, challenged by the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and their own financial resources and systems. At the end of the Cold War, many people thought Washington would relinquish the global duties it had assumed for four decades, that the United States would transform into a "normal nation" and stop being "exceptional." Just a normal country in a normal time. But Washington continued to act "exceptionally," because in reality there was no such normal time, not with the "indispensable nation" syndrome growing in its mind. As a consequence of pressure from war-funded industry lobbies, the great power seeking a "normal life" took on seven military interventions, one every 17 months: Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1992, Haiti in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, Iraq in 1998 and Kosovo in 1999.

It ought to be mentioned, however, that U.S. involvement in Somalia can be classified as the most purely humanitarian of the long list of North American interventions. President George H.W. Bush put it like this: "I know that the United States alone cannot write the world's wrongs." But the, "people of Somalia need ... our help. Some world crises cannot be solved without the U.S.’ involvement." Though not yet explained, there was the "indispensable nation" concept emerging.

[Natural Citizen]

1. Toward scope...

Who are the dispensable nations in the eyes of the indispensable? If we look around the world at the moment (specifically with BRICS nations) we see them beginning to say no to the US with regard to our policies abroad. Sanctions against Russia are a prime example of this as they begin to establish international finance clearing models that are independent of the dollar. Agriculture is taking a huge hit (specifically western agribusiness or GMO industries). Historically, when these nations have said no to US policy they have been labeled the enemy (and we see this with Russia at the moment) when, in fact, they are merely practicing good national security for themselves. Can we name 1 congressman or congresswoman who has asked a single tough question of the President with regard to Russia from either political party? I cannot think of a single one. What we do see, though, is that every one of them have jumped on the demonize Russia bandwagon. And now we have the so called Russian Aggression Prevention Act. And what is this based upon? I'd like to know who is actually advising the President on these things.


The bill... https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2277


Some critical aspects...

“Corker and fellow Republican Party senators have shepherded to full U.S. Senate passage the «Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014». The law, if enacted, would subject Russia to the same level of draconian sanctions currently employed by the United States against Iran, Syria, and Sudan. There is no doubt that such sanctions have one intention: U.S.-style violent regime change as previously directed against Libya and Iraq.

“Corker’s Senate co-sponsors include the typical neo-conservative riff-raff associated with other Cold War-era foreign adventures of the United States.

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American Republican wunderkind who is a right-wing favorite for the presidency in 2016, weighed in with his support for Corker’s bill. Rubio is pushing for similar sanctions against Venezuela and Nicaragua.

“Also supporting the Corker bill is Corker’s Republican colleague from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander.

“The chief supporter of the sanctions bill is Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, a longtime Russophobe who has never passed up a chance to confront Russia militarily, whether it be in Syria, Afghanistan, or Ukraine.

“The Corker bill would impose travel bans and asset freezes on Russian government and Russian corporation officials. Targets include President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, and deputy prime ministers and government ministers. Several Russian firms are targeted in the legislation, including Sberbank, VTB Bank, Vnesheconombank, Gazprombank, Gazprom, Novatek, Rosneft, and Rosoboronexport. Corporate targets include «senior executives» of institutions, defined by the law as «a member of the board, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, secretary, treasurer, general counsel, or chief information officer, or the functional equivalent thereof, of an entity».

So this basically equates to the purpose of the the bill being to make the Ukraine safe for plundering by the West. Right? That's what it sounds like to me.


Anyhoo. Then there is this...

“But there may be more than «drugstore cowboy» politics involved with the Republican sanctions bill.

Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, Tennessee, is known to have engaged in a number of illicit real estate and other financial schemes while serving as mayor.

Tennessee political sources report that businessmen associated with Ukrainian steel and pipeline billionaire oligarch Victor Pinchuk had business dealings in the Tennessee city while Corker served as mayor.

Pinchuk, the son-in-law of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, is also closely linked to neo-conservative U.S. politicians, including McCain; former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove; and Rick Davis, McCain’s presidential campaign manager in 2000 and 2008.

Pinchuk is also the only Ukrainian member of the powerful New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Pinchuk’s annual Yalta European Strategy (YES) conference, held in the czarist-era Livadia Palace on the Black Sea, draws various Western politicians, many with political and financial interests in Ukraine.

Past attendees have included Rove, Soros, McCain’s foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, and such corporatist politicians as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry’s 2004 campaign manager Bob Shrum, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Viktor Yushchenko, Mikheil Saakashvili, Newt Gingrich, CFR President Richard Haass, Shimon Peres, and Ukraine’s «acting» Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.”

Basically the same premise here but there is something else that we've discussed elsewhere on the boards in more detail...

“The Republicans seem intent on punishing former officials of its NATO allies, including Germany and the Netherlands.

For example, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder would be subject to a travel ban and asset freeze by the United States because of his chairmanship of the board of Nordstream AG, which is 51 percent owned by Gazprom. Other Germans who face asset freezes and travel bans include Nordstream board members Eggert Voscherau, the deputy board chairman of BASF AG, Reiner Zwitserloot, chairman of the board of the German gas company Wintershall AG, Burckhard Bergmann, chairman of the board of E. ON AG, and Hans-Peter Floren, chairman of the board of E. ON Ruhrgas AG.

Dutch chairman of the board of Gasunie of the Netherlands, a member of Gazprom’s Nordstream board and chairman of its Southstream board would also be slapped with American sanctions.

Southstream corporate officials who would also be subject to travel bans and asset freezes include corporate officials of Italy, France, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Greece, Germany, Bulgaria, and Hungary, all NATO members, as well as Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

“Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014″: Another U.S. Style Violent Regime Change? - http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-aggression-prevention-act-of-2014-another-u-s-style-violent-regime-change/5383970

So essentially, these folks appear to want to "make Ukraine safe".... for plunder.... by throwing over Germany, Italy, France, and all of Europe. Well...unless it becomes convenient to add a rider to it to say "oh...except for this person and this person and this person and so on and so on...."

I'd like to share a brief discussion with regard to the phenomenon. This is really only meant for our friends who seek to understand US foreign policy at it's root with regard to Russia as well as the mindset of political representatives who would endorse such a bill as the Russian Aggression Prevention Act and the various sanctions that we have seen that align with it. It's worth the 25 minutes to listen to what is discussed here. It really is. It's a great insight of western foreign policy with regard to all nations but discussed in context with what we see toward Russia at the moment.

Russia's worldview of international politics is largely neglected in western media. Nevertheless, Russia has its national interests and red lines. What is the world according to Russia?

Martin McCauley, Nebojsa Malic and Ray McGovern discuss...

[gopiscrap]

2. Welcome to DU

[gopiscrap]

6. You're welcome: May you enjoy your time here at DU

[jakeXT]

4. That's why the United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world.

And moreover, nobody else can do what we do. No other nation does more to underwrite the security and prosperity on which the world depends. In times of crisis, no other nation can rally such broad coalitions to stand up for international norms and peace. In times of disaster, no other nation has the capabilities to deliver so much so quickly. No nation does more to help citizens claim their rights and build their democracies. No nation does more to help people in the far corners of the Earth escape poverty and hunger and disease, and realize their dignity. Even countries that criticize us, when the chips are down and they need help, they know who to call -- they call us. That's what American leadership looks like. That's why the United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/full-text-president-barack-obama-speaks-convention/ng876/