Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| Are Ron Paul and Farid Zakaria allies? |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-01-02
By now, most people know that Ron Paul has been campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform calling, inter alia, for a pull-back from the American military empire and the out-of-sight military/intelligence budgets which have come to be normal in recent years. The Pakistani military holds to its worldview out of an ideological conviction that combines 19th century realpolitik with politicised Islam. But it also has a strong bureaucratic interest in regional friction. After all, with a win-win scenario in which peace with India results in prosperity for the region, why would Pakistan need a vast military that sucks up almost a quarter of the federal budget? The country’s military would end up looking like India’s—noninfluential, nonpolitical, and and well contained within the larger society.(my emphasis). What are we hearing? What is Zakaria saying? He’s saying that a huge military is being kept in place (although peace is available) because the local (Pakistani) Military-Industrial-Complex wants to stay rich and powerful! Let’s invite Farid Zakaria to ask Ron Paul’s question, but using his own analysis, just stated for the case of Pakistan: The USA’s military-industrial-complex holds to its worldview out of an ideological conviction that combines 19th century realpolitik with politicised unregulated-capitalism. But it also has a strong interest in keeping military spending at a high level, both in times of peace and times of war, though spending is vastly increased in times of war. If the USA admitted that it has no military enemies in the world, today, and thus no need for its far-flung military empire—or for its fruitless wars, such as VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—and if the USA also admitted that almost all anti-American feeling in the world today is a reaction to the devastating cruelty of our own wars and also of our military presence world-wide (as well as our support for Israel’s lawless and devastating and far longer-lasting cruelty to the Palestinian people)—then the USA could reduce its military/intelligence spending to a reasonable amount, perhaps 10% of total world-wide such spending, rather than 50% (as today), and the USA could extract prosperity from the ruins in which our efforts to maintain our military empire have left us. If the USA did not pursue a policy of world domination, it would not need to maintain its claim to dominate the oil-producing regions of the world and would thus—to return to a theme familiar to my readers—not need to continue to support Israel in its 44-year illegally conducted (and at this late date, perhaps illegal per se) occupation of lands it captured in war in 1967.[1][2] Without the USA’s support, Israel would soon have to remove its settlers (all present illegally) from the occupied territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights), would soon have to remove its “separation” or “apartheid” wall in the West Bank, would soon have to end its cruel siege on Gaza, and would—to make a long story short—have to make the Two State Peace which the world has (helplessly) envisaged since 1967 (see UNSC Res. 242 (1967)), helplessly because the USA—following its imperial vision (or nightmare)—has vetoed every effort by the international community to use the power of the UNSC to compel Israel to comply with international law. Since achieving a just and lasting Israeli/Palestinian peace is a particular hobby horse of my own, I would for this reason particularly like to see the USA abandon its self-delusion of world’s-sole-super-power needing, to protect its imaginary world-wide hegemony, to secure Israel’s immunity and impunity with regard to international law. ----------- [1] The laws of war as amended by the UN Charter do not allow the occupier to acquire territory by use or threat of violence. Israel’s clear intention to hold in perpetuity much of the land it captured in 1967 might make the occupation(s) illegal per se. ----------- [2] The law of belligerent occupation does not allow the occupier to damage or act as owner of the land it occupies. Israeli courts, however, have ruled that Israel may take ownership of land within occupied territories and may also damage those lands by taking from them minerals which, once taken, will never be replaced, constituting a permanent damage to the land. Israel has also taken most of the water of the West Bank’s aquifers which arguably is a permanent damage since water in aquifers is not normally replenished in the short term by rain fall and thus constitutes an irreplaceable treasure of the land. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |