It is neither in hateful anti-American imprecations, nor in idealistic and pacifistic reveries that the counterweight to American unilateralism can be found, but in European military budgets and sustained efforts towards techno-economic efficacy and, more generally, the acquisition of palpable power. The first stage of this process is epitomised by our continent’s liberation from the ongoing invasion at the hands of Islam and the Third World, an invasion which, in my view, is more of a threat that American political posturing.
C. As the USA Adopts the Soviet Doctrine of ‘Limited Sovereignty’
The anger expressed by the Americans at the French objection to the war in Iraq has brought to light a now explicit fact which had, until recently, only been implicit, going beyond what is termed ‘unilateralism’: the USA (or rather its neocon administration) now espouses the view that the rest of the world is only entitled to a limited independence in relation to its own will and interests. This perception, which is of an almost religious nature, is as perfectly sincere as it is naïve. The USA thinks of itself as the world’s ‘Nation-Guide’, whose orders must surpass all international institutions and whose motivations may result in legitimate violations of international law, including the various treaties that the Americans themselves have fostered and signed.
Michael Leeden, an ideologist of the ‘new world order’ proposed by George H. W. Bush, believes that by opposing the unilateral attack against Iraq, ‘France behaves as though it were the USA’s strategic enemy’ and thus deserves to be ‘punished’. In other words, any objection to American decisions, however illegal they may be, implies contradicting the American will, thus placing the culprit into the position of a strategic enemy, which, in turn, renders the latter’s behaviour illegitimate. American legitimacy has thus replaced all legality.
James Woolsey, the former executive director of the CIA, has stated calmly:
What we criticise France for is not the fact that it exercises its right to freedom of expression, but the fact that it has ventured too far by organising the “no to America” coalition.
An interesting statement: from the American perspective, the freedom of expression and action enjoyed by other countries is thus limited, and it is the prohibition to say ‘no’ to the USA that constitutes this very limit. All one can do is remain neutral and abstain from asserting their position — no more, no less. Moreover, France has displayed ‘insolence’ towards its tutelary mentor and must pay the price for its misconduct. The French veto ‘has disrespected the memory of the GIs who fell defending France in 1944 and whose bodies are now to be repatriated to the USA’, says Ginny Brown-Waite, a Republican Representative from Florida. The ‘allies’ thus owe the USA, i.e. the land of the Good, an ethical and almost religious sort of allegiance and respect. Every irreverent nation is guilty of committing an act of blasphemy. The rogue states belonging to the Axis of Evil and suspected of having an anti-American terrorist or military agenda are hence not alone to be subject to punishment; all the countries that contradict American endeavours are to be punished as well. The USA is thus expanding its notion of legitimate self-defence in a manner that enables it to target any country that would dare oppose it. Defending oneself against American ambitions or attacks is therefore synonymous with aggressing the US.
The NAI can no longer tolerate the slightest criticism or veto on the part of its allies, above all the French. The allies (or rather, the vassals) are no longer entitled to have their own interests or impede the American hubris, as demonstrated by the Iraqi crisis. ‘Anyone who does not side with me, and unequivocally so, is completely against me’: such is the new and utterly demented slogan. The interests of the ‘allies’ are meant to merge entirely with those of their suzerain. The slightest criticism is seen as an act of aggression.
What is advocated by the NAI (i.e. by the Bush administration) is, in all likelihood, the most incompetent attitude in matters of foreign policy ever embraced by the USA. It considers the French and German rebellion (which, in actual fact, is very limited and highly cautious) against American warmongering to be an act of aggression, an offence against the dignity of the sovereign American empire. This incredible intolerance and exaggerated susceptibility is rightfully perceived in Emmanuel Todd’s book After the Empire as ‘a sign of the breakdown of the American order’, at least in terms of what the latter is nowadays like. Philippe de Saint-Robert has made a statement in the same vein:
The American aggression [against Iraq] is far from being a sign that validates the self-assurance of world power. What it denotes is, quite to the contrary, an urge to evade a profound domestic crisis by means of a foreign adventure. (Le Figaro, 16/04/2003)
Helmut Sonnenfeldt, head of the Brooking Institution, is Henry Kissinger’s former advisor and a man who has replaced his support for gentle domination with the straightforward form of imperialism espoused by the fundamentalist Protestant neocons of the Bush administration. He goes as far as to assert that the mere fact of ‘wanting to counterbalance American power’ through an expanded future Europe (in accordance with French intentions) is an inadmissible act of hostility, which is the equivalent of stating that the USA considers its current position of ‘the world’s sole superpower’ to be definitive, one that is meant to establish a New ‘Bushian’ World Order and that views all those who oppose this notion as trouble-makers who are subject to punishment.
From this perspective, the will of this Empire of Good outclasses international law and reduces the UN and its Security Council to a mere rubber stamp that submits to American wishes. In Sonnenfeldt’s eyes, the manner in which the Security Council functions nowadays is intolerable ‘because thanks to its right of veto, Paris is on an equal footing with Washington’. Confirming the American desire to legally become the only independent world power and thus govern others, he specifies that ‘if the Security Council were to sabotage all American initiatives, it would turn into an empty shell the very day the USA decides to look elsewhere’.
What is extraordinary is that this new American doctrine has completely abandoned the old Wilsonian vision of a world governed by morals and legality, a vision that rejected the power politics and warmongering that typified ancient European nations. Without any linguistic precautions, it re-establishes the European (and above all German) nationalistic principles according to which ‘might is right’, as well as the cynical realism of the Machiavellian school of thought. In spite of its declared moralism and messianism, the NAI has restored the notion that force, and force alone, is the law that rules human History and that disembodied, abstract principles have no value whatsoever as long as they are founded upon ‘pure legality’, the fictitious weapon wielded by the weak and impotent. The NAI also embraces the ‘reason of state’ conception, a term that is to be understood in its 19th century European sense. Admittedly, Henry Kissinger, who was one of Metternich’s disciples, did pave the way for such a development.
By embracing this kind of attitude, the NAI is obviously distancing itself from the Christian principles upon which America was established. However, is hypocrisy not the feature of every temporary power? The European states of the 19th century never abided by any evangelical principles, and neither did the princes.
With its decidedly imperial ideological appearance, this radically new position breaks with the Kantian naivety of ‘pure law’. It embodies a sort of syncretism between ancient theories, medieval doctrines and Bismarckian ideas, a syncretism that advocates ‘the right of the strongest’ and the Protestant messianism of ‘God’s emissaries’, who the neocons, beginning with Bush the madman, mistake themselves for. The Pax Americana thus borrows some of its aspects from the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. With regard to its intentions, however, it unknowingly resembles the Pax Sovietica and Pax Islamica as well.
Thomas Donnelly, one of the most influential theoreticians of American neoconservatism, has actually written an article entitled Pax Americana, mentioned in Le Figaro (28/03/2003). In it, he states that
His theory asserts that the arm wrestling contest between the USA and France will end with the latter’s defeat, since it lacks the necessary military and economic-financial power and only possesses ‘moral strength’ and a commitment to ‘law’. It was Stalin who once asked: ‘The Pope? How many divisions?’. Confirming the fact that, being the most powerful country, the USA is entitled to dictate international law, Donnelly adds: ‘A link between the right to formulate international law and the fact of taking responsibility for its implementation will be re-established [in the newly-defined UN]’.
Donnelly’s theories are likeable. They have the merit of replacing naïve pacifism with realism. However, as pointed out by Patrick Buchanan’s isolationistic American nationalists, there is a childish side to the power-drunkenness experienced by current American leaders. Might is right, true enough, but it must be combined with ruse and be genuine, which cannot be said in the case of the USA, a country that possesses neither the ruse nor the true power which it believes itself to have. America sees itself as a superpower, even though it is not.
The fact that it mobilised half of its military arsenal so as to overcome tiny Iraq (in a military campaign which required Great Britain’s indispensable assistance) is proof of both its weakness and its inability to govern this occupied country. The new US administration’s need to resort to injunctions, admonishments and open threats towards any nation that rebels against its hegemony is a sign of decadent power. For the authority of a man, empire or nation cannot be decreed. It simply imposes itself in a natural manner.
The new American strategy is akin to a child throwing a tantrum for not being able to control his toy universe. When facing the Tribunal of History, the USA might well be judged as a failed and ephemeral empire whose current power-drunkenness is synonymous with its decline.
D. The Murky Concept of a ‘Pre-Emptive War’
Arthur J. R. Schlesinger, Kennedy’s former advisor, is among the most lucid and most vigorous critics of the NAI. In his memoirs entitled A Life in the 20th century, as well as in numerous articles published in the overseas press, he resorts to veiled terms to castigate what he refers to as the ‘Bush doctrine’, i.e. that of the neoconservatives. He considers its warmongering and its brutal form of imperialism to be counterproductive and harmful to the USA.
His view is the following: during the Cold War, the USA displayed caution and used a containment and dissuasion strategy against Communism. The Bush doctrine overturns the whole approach and espouses the dangerous (and stupid) doctrine of ‘anticipated self-defence’, a euphemistic appellation referring to ‘pre-emptive war’. The latter, which served as justification for the Iraqi campaign, authorises America to attack in advance all those who (would) threaten the US, Good and world democracy.
Schlesinger reminds us that in 1848, the venerable Abraham Lincoln condemned the use of ‘pre-emptive war’ in the defence of American democratic principles. Back then, it was a matter of attacking Canada, a British colony prone to initiating a potential act of aggression against the Union. Lincoln explained that war could only be considered in case of an actual invasion targeting the national territory and should not be used to counter an alleged threat. Furthermore, what Schlesinger reproaches Bush for is the fact of violating the Lincolnian principle, according to which the President does not have the power to declare war singlehandedly.
However, Schlesinger is somewhat naïve: the USA has always, more or less, practiced ‘pre-emptive war’, using vague moral or self-defensive pretexts whenever its real aim was either to eliminate economic rivals or to appropriate various riches.
The deceitful claims regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction that could threaten both America and world peace are no different from the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor provocations, which served as an excuse for American involvement in the two world wars, nor are they different from the Gulf of Tonkin naval incident that sparked off the war in Vietnam. The only difference is that, nowadays, the NAI resorts both to methods that lack subtlety and to psychic-like lies and ill-prepared pretexts, all of which are within the mental reach of President G. W. Bush and his overzealous team.
***
I am however wary of siding with the righteous souls who, in the name of their declared respect for the UN and public international law, condemn pre-emptive war. If it were always necessary for a given state to place its security in the hands of the ‘thingy’ and await the latter’s authorisation before actually defending itself, the state in question would have great cause for concern.
The main point is that pre-emptive war and anticipative strikes are both perfectly justified whenever a state is objectively threatened (as was the case in 1982, during the Israeli bombardment of the Osirak nuclear reactor which Iraq had obtained from France), and it would be utterly naïve for anyone to attempt to subordinate them to the authorisation of the vague ensemble known as the ‘international community’. Yet the NAI takes advantage of this concept through3 its own deceitful expansion, thus objectively jeopardising world peace without actually protecting the USA in any way against genuine threats.
If I were a genuine American nationalist, I would be scandalised by the horrific sums that are being spent on pseudo-preventive military adventures in the Middle East, the objective of which is, among other things, to enrich the military-industrial and oil complexes controlled by the oligarchy currently in power, all to the detriment of American citizens. I would additionally demand the expulsion and consequent numerical reduction of the 8 million Middle-Eastern and Asian Muslims that have settled in the USA and turned it into a real breeding ground for terrorists; their presence would strike me as a more objective threat than the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ owned by one country or another.
***
Furthermore, to demonstrate the coarseness and falseness of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ pretext used by the Americans to initiate the Iraqi invasion, it would suffice to point out that if a given country genuinely possessed such weapons (i.e. weapons that have the potential to threaten American and global security), neither war nor military occupation would be necessary; all it would take is a few aerial or ballistic strikes conducted against the military sites in question, which the sophisticated American wiretap and surveillance devices are perfectly able to identify.
E. The NAI’s Watchword — ‘Everything Is Allowed’
The NAI operates in accordance with the following watchwords: ‘Everything is allowed now’ and ‘we have not had any major rival since the fall of the USSR’. The former prudence displayed by the US-Soviet condominium is vanishing, which is a severe mistake, since every kind of domination must be founded upon the virtue of prudence (Aristotle). This is of no consequence, however, because hubris has now taken over the situation. Ever since the 9/11 events, American leaders have been striving for a sort of global coup, in harmony with a tenet inspired by Jack Marshall.
Anything is allowed, and I mean literally anything: the USA proceeds to violate the rules of the WTO (which I myself have enacted) for the sake of its own personal profit; it allows itself to pollute the environment while tearing the Kyoto protocol to shreds; it continues to conduct nuclear tests after protesting vehemently against those carried out by France; it targets the EU with injunctions to organise the latter in harmony with its own wishes; it decrees unilateral ‘punishments’ to chastise those countries which criticise the US global policy or seem to want to hinder it; it wages war anywhere and against whoever it pleases without UN approval, targeting countries that are deemed ‘diabolical’; it demands that no member of the US military is ever prosecuted by the International Criminal Court; it resorts to ammunition comprising impoverished uranium, whose ionising radiation levels are considerable; it imposes the
sale of GM food all over the world in collaboration with bribed European authorities, although such food may well be carcinogenic; it foments large-scale electronic espionage, particularly at the expense of its own allies; it imposes blockages and embargoes upon whoever fails to meet its approval; and so on. This list could easily be a few pages longer.
***
However, American leaders are well aware of the fact that this ‘global coup’ has two disadvantages: first of all, American economic power is decreasing in relative terms, especially when compared to Asia. After the year 2020, China will become the foremost global economic power, a fact that everyone is conscious of. On the other hand, the USA lives off the credit of other countries, with its gigantic commercial deficit only balanced by the investment flux from the rest of the world to America. The USA is thus indebted to other countries, which places it in a rather uncomfortable position, a position that is comparable to that of the Roman Empire once it had reached its apex and thus also the wake of its downfall.
Therefore, Washington set out to develop a doctrine that lies discretely at the centre of the NAI, namely that of absolute military supremacy, a supremacy unheard of since the days of Charles Quint. Hence the American objective to considerably increase the US military budget (which had been diminishing since the end of the Cold War), even though the USA is no longer under direct threat from any world power. With more than half of all global military expenses, which it invests into hyper-technological warfare capacities rather than a massive army, the NAI has waged everything upon its military tools so as to establish a hegemony that its economic, commercial, financial and cultural power will no longer enable it to sustain.
A Global Coup Page 3