Saturday, 31 October 2015

Why We Intervene Abroad

The word “we” is often used when the state and its sycophantic followers use it for intervening abroad. “We intervened” with “our” armed forces, almost as though it had reached widespread approval.  Since the second world war there have been plenty of interventions, in the 1940's the United States “intervened” in China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, Korea, Albania, and much of Eastern Europe.  In the 1950's they “intervened” in Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Syria and other areas of the Middle East, Indonesia, British Guiana, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Haiti.  In the 1960s: Guatemala (again), France/Algeria, Ecuador, the Congo, Brazil, Perú, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Indonesia (again), Ghana, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, Bolivia, Vietnam (again), Cambodia (again), Laos (again), Haiti (again).  The 1970's: Costa Rica, Zaire, Angola, Australia, Iraq, Jamaica, Seychelles, Grenada, Afghanistan, Cuba (again), Haiti (again), Vietnam (again), Cambodia, Laos. The 1980's: Grenada (again), Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Bulgaria, Albania (again), Afghanistan (again), El Salvador, Guatemala (again), Cuba (again), Haiti (again).  The 1990's: Iraq (again), Somalia, Haiti (again), Cuba (again), Yugoslavia, Sudan, Indonesia (again).

Yet the above named countries are just a fraction of the ones Washington and others have “intervened” in.  Why do they do it?  That is the title of the essay so it really ought to be answered.  In 1915 Britain became aware her Empire was pining away, and so did others.  The U.S would have to wait another thirty-years until they could totally dominate the world and set a new global framework others around the world were forced to adopt.  It was that or Washington would “intervene” whenever it suited their specific needs to do so.  During world war two groups in the U.S state department and Council of European Relations established the “Grand Area”, this “Grand Area” included the Far East, Western Europe, the former British Empire,  and the third world, if it could be achieved, the rest of the planet.  The third world was to fulfill its function, and Europe was to play its part in “exploiting Africa”, to borrow George Kennan’s phrase, the American postwar planner.  The task of the U.S was to secure the Grand Area and make sure it fitted with their hegemonic plans, any disobedience and they would be smashed quite brutally until they obeyed their imperial masters. 

Countries that choose an independent path thus deciding not to allow U.S corporations to hijack their economies, plunge their populations into total misery and destitution, forcing neoliberal designs on them, destroying socialist organisations, trade unions, democracy, progressive political parties and countries’ social and political structures, paid for their temerity.  With Afghanistan and Iraq, they were just complete corporate takeovers, in Cuba,  Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada, the U.S and its allies sought to control them and stop independent development and nationalism.  When Cuba looked like a tough nut to crack under Castro, despite its size and close distance to the U.S, the Kennedy liberals resorted to chemical warfare and a sustained terror campaign launched by Robert Kennedy.  Haiti is a similar story but without chemical agents, the major difference is Haiti, unlike Cuba was destroyed; Cuba defied the United States but both countries suffered immensely because they opposed corporate fascism.  Time and time again Washington succeeded in controlling the countries’ economies, with predicted untold horrors. The Reaganites overthrew Maurice Bishop of Grenada in 1983 and in the same decade were indicted by the World Court of Justice concerning their actions towards Nicaragua.  The court accused the United States of “violating the customary international law prohibition on the use of force when it assisted the contras by “organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces and armed bands… for incursion into the territory of another state” and participated “in acts of civil strife…in another State”  when these acts involved the threat or use of force.”  I am quoting Public international Law (an introduction to public international law  for students).

“The use of force”, in layman’s terms, essentially translates into international terrorism, it is furtive but the reasons for such actions have already been discussed.  Criticisms of these “interventions” has to work within a very narrow framework.  For example, when the media criticised the Americans over their “intervention” in Vietnam, it was always from the perspective of the “we made a mistake” syndrome, it seldom reached beyond that.  This nonsense is still prevalent today.  This, of course, was and is complete rubbish.  It was not “a mistake”, as their faithful enthusiasts proclaim, but a brutal, barbaric and criminal subjugation of a gentle land, but criticism beyond the “mistake” was not acceptable, the history on this is obscure for the majority, but the truth beyond the mass murder in this country is both shocking and gruesome.

Before the U.S had the god-given right to “intervene” in any country they saw fit, it was Britain that sought to dominate the world with its imperialism, colonialism and aggression across the seas.  And now, these people who tolerate and even accept such behaviour ought to hang their heads in shame. This poses imminent and important questions about the state.  What is its purpose and what is its role?

States are not moral agents, they do not create their domestic and foreign policies on morals or ethics, in fact, the very opposite is the case. States collude in “interventions” abroad because they act as deranged psychopaths. They subject nations to mass murder, they destroy villages, use lethal agents such as chemical weapons and biological warfare, women are subject to the most grotesque sexual violence, infrastructures are deliberately dismantled, people’s spirits are stolen, as well as their souls and communities, all this because of “national security interests”. These demented lunatics in power do not even think about doing such things.  They have no guilt, no conscience, no empathy, and no sympathy, they are sordid sociopaths.  It must be stated then that the state, every state is venomous, poisonous, a criminal institution that ought to be abolished outright.

“Intervening” in the affairs of others is a disgraceful thing to do.  Nobody should be subject to such horrors, but indeed they are.  Yet the state seeks to justify these things, it has always justified them and it will always justify them.  But what is all this “we”?  “Our armed forces”, “our national security concerns”, “our democratic process”, “our way of life”.  It is not ours, it is theirs, and they know it. There are always comical excuses for “intervening” in other countries.  In Iraq, it was weapons of mass destruction and regime change, in Afghanistan it was the link between Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, with Kosovo it was “humanitarian intervention”, Panama was the “drugs war”, Grenada was “a threat to our national security”, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was to stop the “domino effect”, the same thing true of China and Korea.  Whatever “intervention” is made, the state will always seek to justify their deprived actions.

Of course when the state pretends to be democratic, it has no choice but to invent and fabricate the reasons for “intervening” in other countries.  It is clear they have to convince their populations to buy into the big lie, this is largely done by government propaganda, but as nobody really trusts these politicians or believe a word they utter, the media act as agents to push through sadistic acts of aggression by convincing the population that it is the right thing to do.  Yet all the intelligence gathering for such “interventions” is never presented to the public, and for good reason.  These are crimes that have been committed throughout history, and people rarely face charges for this patent barbarism.  

In more democratic countries, where some sort of democracy functions, prominent politicians of the ruling party must support this abominable criminality to further their own careers.  For no Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or whoever in charge will not keep this person in front line politics who air such criticisms, plus, in general terms, politicians have no real values or principles, the only principles they believe in, if you can call them that, is for selfish, personal gain.  Dissidents in government are rooted out straight away and thrown into the garbage bin of history.  It is akin to a Stalinist purge but without the bloodshed.

Why, and indeed how can politicians live with themselves when they take part in human destruction on a mass scale? It appears they are beyond human, they are beyond anything benign and decent.  The state, it is fair to say, is the greatest institution of organised violence known to civilisation we have.  It is systematic, cruel and utterly outrageous.  Then years later when they write their memoirs and biographies, justifying the state terror they played a key role in but of course they do not call it state terror, they call it “humanitarian intervention”, and by avoiding another bloodbath, they tell us, we helped these poor people.  This is the big lie. As time passes, more and more people are becoming aware of this.  

What is the point of the World Court of Justice, the High Court, the Supreme court, the European Court of Human Rights, the Royal Courts of Justice and so forth when all they do is convict petty criminals?  Courts around the world convict victims of poverty.  These people mug, rob, thieve, sometimes even murder; and they are “punished” and are classed as criminals for life, but the real criminals, the state and corporate criminals are seldom prosecuted in these courts or indeed anywhere.  They are never brought to these courts let alone convicted of anything.  For there is in every country in the world a two-tier justice system that exist: to punish the poor and undeserving, but on the other hand, the people who run the country, corporations, purveyors of private power, investors and so on tend not to be subject to the law, they are above the law, this is well known, despite this the status quo stays in place.  Notice how the imperial powers constantly “intervene” overseas.  Throughout history and certainly since 1945 no imperial power has ever intervened abroad for benevolent purposes.  It would be a task to find one single example where this has happened.  This is the morality of the state, or rather the immorality of the state.  I have been very generous in describing states’ aggression as “interventions”, they do far more than just intervene.  They subjugate, they invade, occupy, bombard, destroy and so forth.

It is also the case where the imperial powers believe they have the god-given right to “intervene” abroad, and that no other country has this same right.  Yet they do this, and they do it with total impunity.  “we must intervene”, they claim, “we must”, this is the nonsense they come up with, and they sell it like a salesman sells toothpaste.  They also do it successfully with devastating consequences.  To conclude then the elite terrorist states “intervene” for their own self-interest.  They do it largely for the purpose of domination, to control entire economies, internal policies of others, and to control them indefinitely, and if the do not submit, the “intervention” becomes more brutal and barbaric until they submit to the imperial state.  The imperial state is in the hands of a few number of wealthy individuals and organisations and these demand “interventions” take place for business interests.  For example it was Wall street that decided the U.S should subjugate Indochina, and when they demanded they end the “war”, they did.  The state is, in the words of William Godwin, “the brute engine”.
21st December, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment