Greg Pence
The proxy war waged by the United States against Russia in Ukraine can be seen as a continuation of the same keyword that Clinton used in the Kosovo war: “globalization.” Addressing the American people in the midst of the 1999 US airstrikes in Kosovo, he said that the issue of Kosovo’s independence was about globalization and the fight against tribal thinking. The political use of the dualism of tribal thinking, in which national interests take precedence over globalization, is something that has gone beyond its original idea of a model of free trade and peace between nations.
The American political structure believes in a kind of globalization that thinks above all about the dissolution of any traditional and political forms of human societies and does not believe in the survival of national governments, indigenous and local identities, and geographical boundaries. All people and nations must be integrated into the multinational corporations and the pro-Washington political economy network, which have come together as irresponsible and transnational institutions.
Rather than being the bedrock of today’s society’s advancement, globalization has become a model for Washington’s hot and cold wars, or policies of economic sanctions and maximum pressure through which nations are put under pressure to take advantage of governments. In other words, globalization has so far been nothing but the Americanization of the world and the expansion of the domination of financial institutions and multinational corporations, even with coups and wars to plunder resources and exploit cheap labor and outsource multiple political, economic and cultural crises of the United States from the center to the periphery.
The inherent problem of globalization is that governments and nations are not evolving institutions in American laboratories and are unwilling to give up without a struggle. This globalization emphasizes the threat of countries in the periphery and the suppression of anti-globalization and nationalist movements, rather than offering the olive branch and somehow focusing on the policy of improving the world’s living conditions. Eventually, the only possible solution is military advance in the form of NATO.
It does not matter who enters the White House in the US election. It does not matter what promises are made in the election campaign. In any case, the same economic policies that the world order has imposed even on the United States are being pursued. The result of globalization today is an anomalous order defined by the movement of capital, and these capitals are able to cross national and international borders effortlessly, even if human dignity is brutally exacerbated by rising income inequality and the undermining of the foundations of democracy. Because investing, especially in the financial capital sector, can leave a country in a very short time and create an acute financial crisis, governments feel themselves in the shackles of this existing order. In short, in the “Americanization of world financial sovereignty,” domestic companies merged into capital, replacing government and people sovereignty.
What has happened is a dual paradox of world order within American politicians, known as the “America First” or” America, World Ruler” strategy. The problem is that the amalgamation of these two strategies has turned the world into a hotbed of populist and extremist groups in the United States and Europe and takfiri and jihadist groups in the Middle East, and with the discrediting of “cosmopolitan ideas for peace” has finally given rise to cold and hot war.
In this new capitalist order, led by the United States and even China, more than anything else, the nations of the world are under the illusion of peaceful coexistence and multiple crises, and fewer people or countries coexist for peace. This strategic paradox in international relations has, above all, divided the world into camps that must either side with anti-Western Russia or, like Europe, become America’s strategic slaves, Or, like China and India, their economic potentials should serve consumption in the United States.
To better understand the changing global situation, it may be necessary to refer to the global blockade of Ukraine. Contrary to what the Western media is reporting on a unified, free world led by the United States, a major confrontation is taking place behind the scenes. The UN General Assembly vote on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on March 2 and the suspension of Russia’s membership in the UN Human Rights Council on April 7 saw countries try to break free from the yoke of US dictatorial policy or, as Obama puts it, the doctrine of leading from behind.
In this regard, apart from the five countries (Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Russia and Syria) that voted against the March 2 resolution, 19 countries voted against the proposed US resolution on April 7. To these 19 countries, if we add the 58 countries that abstained from voting on the April 7 resolution, we get close to 77 countries, which make up 40% of the total 193 members of the United Nations. Interestingly, six of these members opposed to the US resolution are members of the G20 and have significant weight in world politics.
Thus, at least 40% of the countries of the world follow a “narrative” different from the narrative of the Western world order. This can perhaps be called a return to the English version of the “Levellers “in the face of supporters of the form of the full government of “Leviathan”. Levellers’ challenge to this unilateral American world order is specifically the equality of nations on the world stage, the polarization of the world, world peace, and the global response to pervasive crises. The consequence of the growth of this policy is the restoration of the identity and independence of political units around the world, which can be described as a confrontation with the agreement with Leviathan (USA).
In this situation, what appears to be in an existential crisis is the very issue of American world order. If the goals of the American post-Cold War order are a commitment to defend, maintain, and expand international order — which includes maintaining and overseeing common norms and laws, liberal economic systems, countering land occupation, respecting national independence, and advancing democratization policy- this order can be considered coming to an end, and its survival is something that exists only on paper and in the slogans of American politicians.
The same order that has caused so much chaos in the world that Henry Kissinger, one of the former architects of this order, claims in his book “World Order” that “ No truly ‘global’ world order’ has ever existed”.” Now, more than anything else, one must ask whether it is possible to occupy a country, to impose sanctions on it and pressure and threaten it to war under the pretext of maintaining the world order. Perhaps the death of this order is a sign that peace is coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment