Part II- The Scourge Of Unilateralism

The global village was to be treated to a grand eloquent display of naked self-interest, more politely termed 'unilateralism'. History shows unilateralism to be a harbinger of war and this has surely been the case. Part of the neoconservative manifesto is serial and pre-emptive warfare as necessary. The concept of pre-emptive warfare is especially odious as it leaves the unilateralist free to start wars where ever and when ever it sees fit. Too many commentators refuse to entertain the possibility that the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts could be preliminary to larger conflicts with Russia and/or China. Both Iraq and Afghanistan constitute ideal staging areas for just such a conflict. They were not attacked for the threat they posed but were seen as easy victories and an opportunity to seize them for their important strategic locations, and of course in the case of Iraq it was to hijack that country’s oil resources. Unilateralism is an unstable and ominous condition and war is the ultimate unilateralist statement. It must eventually be supplanted by multilateral values. If more multilateralist values are not adopted by a new US administration other countries must collectively insist on them otherwise we come complicit in creating an increasingly perilous world and contribute to an utterly insane arms race that desecrates the sacrifice of the tens of millions of people who died in the wars of the 20th century. There seems to be a determination that this budding new century will be sacrificed to militarism and war just as the last. Russian President Valdimir Putin has just delivered a stinging tirade against US encroachment on the borders of his country as the US rings Russia and China with missile defence and precipitates an ominous arms race in Eastern Asia. It was Russia who saved the West’s ass in WWII by absorbing the brunt of Hitler’s military might, taking by far the most casualties, and is now the target of America’s war mongering neo-imperialist ambitions. The Cold War proved that one of the best assurances for peace was when super powers blunted each others power-bilateralism and the concept of MAD(Mutually Assure Destruction) assured peace, or at least avoidance of a major confrontation. There are no doubt those sitting back complacently making the assumption that with the passing of the present administration US foreign policy will become more moderate. This is far from guaranteed as the US is a country enslaved to the military industrial complex( in spite of Eisenhower’s dire warning.) Hot wars are the means to justify the complex’s gluttonous presence and decisively advance the country’s self-interest. The presidential primaries already give indicators of things to come. The Republican candidate John McCain is a super hawk and if he assumed the presidency there is every likelihood there would be little change in America’s crippled international posture. Hillary Clinton has made a huge political blunder. Where she should have used her Senate seat to lay the ground work for her presidential campaign she saw fit to support the war in Iraq and acquiescently endorse the Bush agenda. A Clinton presidency would very well be no more than Bush in a pant suit. Though she claims to be gravely concerned for the future of her country she has shown her political integrity to be all too malleable to be a reform president. She should have been among the handful of senators who had the courage and fortitude to openly oppose the Iraq war. Unfortunately, American Democrats have a failing in common with Canada’s Liberals. Even when they do have power they kowtow to the corporatist right wing agenda, leaving voters no real alternative. It can easily be argued it doesn’t matter who wins this presidential race. Especially now, any American president quickly becomes captive to very powerful lobbyists and monolithic groups with deeply entrenched vested interests. To alter the course of the country even in some very modest way becomes a Herculean task. Given the political landscape it is little wonder Americans are flocking to the candidacy of Barack Obama. He is the only candidate of any party who presents a clear alternative to the status quo. Should he become president though, he will have to stand on the shoulders of the likes of Lincoln and Roosevelt to make even a modest difference. Though it may be unarticulated as a campaign issue, the US presidential election is, in large part, a referendum on unilateralism. Americans realize, knowingly or not, their country is paying a huge price in human and financial terms. Unilateralism is debilitating to their social, financial, political and constitutional structures, with similar effects on their allies. Let there be no mistake, no devious misrepresentations, the issue is not anti-Americanism-it is unilateralism. It is an issue other countries, especially America’s allies, must address; but most importantly it is one Americans themselves must address. Next: The global village in peril Robert Billyard (c) 2008 Part 1: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080212070136219

Note: http://www.vivelecanada...