The failed
foreign-policy strategy of the neoconservatives and neoliberals has
served to dramatically reduce Washington's role and influence in the
world. Important alliances are being forged without seeking the
assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the
early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the
PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming
undone. Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the
last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in
the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States.
The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey
and Russia, notably excluded the United States.
The
military, media, financial and cultural assault successfully
prosecuted over decades by Washington finally seems to have met its
Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and
China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative
media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria),
diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an
intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from
terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China.
Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct
consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries
like the United Kingdom and the United States.
The
relentless efforts by the majority of Western political
representatives for a successful model of globalization has created a
parasitic system of turbo capitalism that entails a complete loss of
sovereignty by America’s allies. Brexit and Trump have served as an
expression of ordinary people’s rejection of these economic and
political regimes under which they live.
In Syria,
Washington and its puppet allies have almost exited the scene without
achieving their strategic goal of removing Assad from power. Within
the American political system, the establishment, spanning from
Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political
failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of
propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost
their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of
partisanship and immorality.
Donald Trump
has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by
various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth
Waltz and John Mearsheimer. First on the to-do list is doing away
with all the recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of
foreign intervention (Responsibility to Protect - R2P) and soft-power
campaigns in favor of human rights. And there will be no more UN
resolutions deviously employed as cover to bomb nations back into the
stone age (Libya). Trump does not believe in the central role of the
UN in international affairs, reaffirming this repeatedly during his
campaign.
The Trump
administration intends to end the policy of regime change,
interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab
Springs, and color revolutions. Such efforts, they argue, are
ultimately ineffective anyway and are too costly in terms of
political credibility. In Ukraine the Americans have allied
themselves with supporters of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, and in the
Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra
Front. These tactics, infamously branded as 'leading from behind',
never achieved their desired results. The Middle East is in chaos,
with a Moscow-Tehran axis emerging and going from strength to
strength. In Ukraine, the government in Kiev not only seems incapable
of complying with the Minsk agreements but also of prosecuting a new
military campaign with no guarantees from their European and American
partners.
There is a
wild card that Trump hopes to play in the first months of his
presidency. The strategy will focus on the inherited chaotic
situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Obama will be blamed for
the previous chaos, it will be argued that sanctions against the
Russian Federation should be removed, and Moscow will be given a free
hand in the Middle East. In one fell swoop, the future president may
decide not to decide directly on the Middle East or on Ukraine,
avoiding any further involvement and instead finally making a
decision in the national interest of his country.
A
sustainable strategy may finally be attained by remaining passive
towards the developments in the Middle East, especially on the Syrian
front, leaving it firmly in Russian hands, while emphasizing at the
same time the effort against Daesh in cooperation with Moscow.
Another wise choice would see Kiev falling by the wayside, trashing
Ukrainian ambitions to regain the Donbass and recover Crimea.
Finally, removing sanctions would allow the next president to
strengthen the alliance with European partners (a diplomatic
necessity that Trump must make as the new president). Over two years
the EU has suffered from economic suicide in the name of a failed
policy strategy imposed by Washington. The Trump presidency will seek
to normalize relations between Moscow and Washington as well as with
European allies more willing to actively collaborate with the Trump
administration.
The Middle
East will accordingly see a decline in violence, increasing the
chances of seeing an end to the conflict in Syria. This plan for the
initial phase of the Trump presidency has been widely announced
during the months leading up to his election, both by himself or by
members of his staff.
The implicit
message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations.
Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit
willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and
China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for
the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance
between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost
ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand
chessboard of international relations.
Read
full article:
Comments
Post a Comment