Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| How the corruption of President Obama hurts the USA |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-02-27
Many know that King Canute, in 1035 king of England, Denmark, etc., commanded the tide not to wet the hem of his royal garment. Few know that when the tide disobeyed him, as he knew it would, he then announced that the powers of kings was less than some imagined. “On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” Ambassador Rice said. (but which Obama was for some reason unwilling to allow to be enacted into a UNSC resolution), namely, that the Israeli settlers and settlements in the occupied territories are illegal at international law. The draft said, in part: Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967, This (draft) resolution was not even asking that existing settlements and settlers be removed (as UNSC-465 did in fact do)! And, far more important in the real world, it was not demanding such removal under the penalties (“sub poena”) of pre-stated sanctions (as UNSC-465 failed to do). No sir. It was just mumbling something inconsequential about an obvious point of international law, a point upon which there is already complete agreement among the nations (Israel apart, to be sure). One might wonder why the USA would be so eager to avoid asserting the illegality of the settlements. After all, this illegality is of so little importance to the USA that it has helped Israel flout this point of international law for 43 years now. But it seems the USA is more embarrassed by words than by deeds. President Obama did cast his veto. And he did so despite the fact that his generally pro-Israel allies, UK and Germany and France, to say nothing of the USA’s “Quartet” partner Russia, and the USA’s lender-of-choice, China, all voted—and spoke eloquently—in favor of the (draft) resolution. So, again, why did the president of the USA disagree so flagrantly with—in effect—the entire rest of the world on this point? And why did he also disagree with his own finer impulses, suggested in his speech in Cairo? Do you really have to ask? I answer in one word: “CORRUPTION”. The president was CORRUPT when he used his veto: corrupt because be valued his own “power” and his hopes for re-election ABOVE honor, truth, human rights, the Rule of Law, or even the good opinion in the eyes of mankind of the USA or of himself. ‘We don’t need no stinking “good opinion” ‘ he seemed to say, while casting his veto. (This attitude fits ill, it seems to me, with a sentence of the USA’s own Declaration of Independence: a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. It should be remembered that the USA’s veto was explained in terms that the entire reset of the world found risible, namely, that declaring Israel’s settlements illegal (once again, mind) would somehow set back progress on a peace treaty which had made no progress, but quite the opposite, for 20 years! And, indeed, he could not have voted “YES” (or “ABSTAIN”) without abandoning his hopes for re-election (and for any sort of continuing importance within the American political system) even if, by so voting, he might have achieved the status of “STATESMAN” and earned his ever-so-premature Nobel Peace Prize. So, by putting his electoral and legislative hopes ahead of his role as president of the USA (charged with the security of the USA, mind), Obama corruptly cast his veto in the UNSC—tending to endanger the USA—in order to “preserve, protect and defend” what? In order to preserve, protect and defend the increasingly evanescent right-wing-Zionist hegemony over the government of the USA. Oh, sorry, what I meant to say was: in order to “preserve, protect and defend” his power as a leader of American legislation (such as it is) and the likelihood of his re-election (such as it is). Here, let me say that I have the highest opinion of President Obama. Anyone elected president of the USA would have found herself in the same trap, and many would have approved of the trap rather than fought against it. One recent Republican president—with the unquestioning and ebullient assistance of at least one who later aspired to be the Democratic candidate for president— got the USA into two disastrous wars, the practice of torture and kidnapping and all that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo represent, something that President Obama has not done. What I identify, here, as Obama’s corruption, may merely be a species of corruption built-in to the American system by now. Former President Carter, alone among American ex-presidents, has made the very slightest and gentlest waves against this monumental, granitic trap. Obama evidently concluded (as to his veto) that by such craven, timorous cowering before the combined guns (sorry, dollars) of the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Politically-Donative Organizations, he would gain in political power what he lost by making his craven, timorous cowering so blatant, so obvious, and so overpowering, that every sentient American—perhaps even those snoozing—would surely see and correctly interpret it for what it was. But now two serious questions in rebuttal of the above: [1] Did Obama really endanger the military security of the USA—or its financial interests—by this veto? [2] And did he really succumb only to the power of the Pro-Israel Lobby? One wants to be fair to this president in whom one reposed so many hopes in 2008. So my answers, in reverse are these: No, President Obama did not succumb ONLY to the powerful pro-Israel lobby. Sadly, our entire government—state department, military, anti-terrorism, intelligence, administrative agencies of all kinds—is full of (or infiltrated with, if you prefer) people whose lives have been devoted to serving the American empire, a somewhat concealed structure devoted to enriching the very rich and their corporations (including the American very rich and American corporations) at the cost of poor people throughout the world (including those here in the USA). The military-industrial-complex is at the center of all this. Israel is deeply involved with the USA’s military. The $3B annual USA gift to Israel is mostly spent on American-produced armaments, thus supporting the MIC. Loyalty to Israel is pretty much an element of loyalty to the USA’s empire (for apparatchiks of government anyhow). The Congress is filled almost entirely with stalwart supporters of Israel. This has been true for many years, perhaps since 1967, and is not the president’s fault. We may thank the ever-industrious Conference of Presidents of the Major American Politically-Donative Organizations for this state of affairs. It is very hard, indeed, for any Congressman to imagine seeking re-election without kow-towing at all times, and most obsequiously, to The Lobby. Anyone in government who is in a position to request money from Congress knows she must act unquestioningly pro-Israel if the question ever arises. Opposition is not merely unwise but nearly impossible to imagine. (“What? Are you crazy? Why would I ever do that? And, for the record, I believe that Israel’s settlements are not merely entirely legal but also the best thing since sliced bread.”) So, too, are most appointed and many civil-service members of administrative agencies. If Obama were to turn his back—in a substantial way—on Israel, he’d have no support in Congress or in the administrative agencies or appointed politicians. Think of the cold shoulder he’d get! Politicians may occasionally be willing to lead, but they gave up trying to “turn back the waves” with King Canute. (Also, Obama may recall that two earlier presidents were assassinated in politically troubled times. Obama’d probably enjoy completing his term even if not re-elected.) Well, then, has Obama really harmed the USA? Its empire? I think so. The USA has sometimes been a leader by right of enlightened ideas as well as overwhelming military and economic (and financial) power. By this veto, Obama continues—at a crucial moment—the process by which nations which once looked to the USA for leadership have come to realize they must look elsewhere. With all the democratic ferment in the Arab world, and with the horrible examples of Israeli monstrousness still held in all (but American and Israeli) minds—Israel’s trashing of Lebanon (2006), siege of Gaza (2007-present) and obliterative bombing of Gaza (late 2008, early 2009), murderous interception of the humanitarian aid ship Mavi Marmara, and the ever-present and ever-illegal settlement project in the West Bank—the world was waiting for the USA to show (at long last) a sense of decency; but they waited in vain. The USA cannot show decency. And thus, we have surrendered leadership to whichever country (or coalition) may be brave enough to seek it. Turkey? Egypt (a bit later)? Hard to predict. But, absent a truly amazing and surprising sea-change in the USA’s governance, the “leader of the free world” will not be the USA. I would say that the surrender of leadership was harmful to the USA. (Our leadership in the world is, of course, economic, as well as ethical. However, our mindless, blinkered concentration on empire and pro-Israelism has cost us greatly inasmuch as it has sapped our energies to consider other problems.)[1] [2] [3] The surrender of our decency, of course, was worse. And completely unnecessary. No interest of the USA depends on the continuation of Israel’s settlement project. No interest of the USA depends on the continuation of Israel’s occupations of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Syrian Golan. And yet we surrender all just as if these misbegotten policies were cornerstones of our own well-being rather than the beginning of the end of USA’s predominance in the world. Well, well. ----------- [1] ”One may presume that the current [economic] crisis is a consequence of the gradual decrease of the US leadership in the world economy. The reduction was triggered by selfish and unpredictable actions of the US administration in politics and economy. The struggle between those willing to take the vacant place of the leader may result in serious conflicts. Great Britain and the British Community are the main candidates at this point.”(Pravda, 2009) ----------- [2] ”In the latter half of the first decade of the 21st century things seem to be changing. The United States unrivalled global predominance seems to be increasingly coming under challenge. Russia is in the process of both strategic and economic resurgence. China’s military modernization and its strategic intent is now being perceived in the United States as a threat in East Asia and the Pacific. Russia and China are now strategic partners with convergent interests to challenge American global predominance. They have already given notice to this effect in Central Asia. What does all this portend to the United States? The signs are ominous and the United States would be well advised to take notice of all this. Most importantly, Russia and China will increasingly challenge the United States in East Asia , Central Asia and West Asia--- all strategic to American national security interests. The United States will increasingly face counter-pressure points from both of these in different parts of the world. In such a developing scenario the United States has a daunting task that by its unilateralist policies it does not create new enemies, retain old friends and take on board those nations it should and in the process learn to respect the strategic sensitivities of all of them. Can the United States do it? Hopefully the United States can shed its unilateralist impulses, but this only time will tell.” (An Indian View, 2006) ----------- [3] ”EDUCATION IN AMERICA: WILL THE UNITED STATES LOSE ITS GLOBAL PREDOMINANCE?” (see here.) |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |