War on Peace

In sum, the domestic and foreign policies of the American government are tailored towards propping up and serving three special interests more than anything else, namely, drugs, weapons, and oil, given that these are the three most lucrative business and corporate interests in the world. In turn, the financial sector is the fuel and fodder for these three special interests, given the extent of the “Return on Investment” (ROI) rendered from these three special interests. While in theory the American government is supposed to somehow balance corporate and popular interests, it is no secret that the American government is mainly a tool and instrument to advance and sustain these three special interests at the expense of regular people in America. One of the major insults to American military servicemen and servicewomen, for instance, is the idea or notion that these servicemen and servicewomen are merely “mercenaries” for American and Gulf Arab corporations and special interests. 

In a book titled “Opium: How an Ancient Flower Shaped and Poisoned Our World,” John H. Halpern and David Blistein explained that while Britain was the pioneer of the global drug and opium trade, the United States was quick to enter it:

“Although the United States was a much smaller player than Great Britain in the opium trade at first, American companies would eventually use equally shameless rationalizations and brazen self-interest to invest in it and, later, collective amnesia to avoid acknowledging the damage it caused. That duplicity, combined with racial prejudice, has led to the assumption that continues to this day, that America’s opium problems in the nineteenth century were caused by China when, if anything, it was the opposite.” 

As mentioned before, American and British interests in Afghanistan revolve around drugs and opium, given that Afghanistan produced more than 90 percent of the world’s opium supply over the last couple of decades. Thus, America’s “opioid epidemic” over the last couple of decades stems largely from American and British interests in Afghanistan. Opium production in Afghanistan rose by about 700 percent after the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001. And despite all the talk about Afghan democracy, human rights, and women’s emancipation and education on the part of Washington and London, all this talk was merely a pretext used on the part of Washington and London to invade and occupy Afghanistan to protect their opium interests. If anything, Washington is quite dishonest and hypocritical over these issues, as evinced by how the abortion issue has turned out in America and how sexual freedom is virtually non-existent in an environment like America whereby sexual freedom is largely repressed. Hypocrisy in Washington over these issues is also evinced by how Bernie Sanders has been stonewalled during the last few Democratic Party primary elections, even though Sanders is projected to beat virtually any Republican candidate that is put forth. And the fact that higher education is so difficult to attain in America goes to show the hypocrisy of Washington over the issue of women’s education or the education of any gender for that matter. 

And as Steve Coll highlighted in a book titled “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power,” the highly controversial tool or instrument of the American government’s foreign policy “toolkit” known as “regime change” has largely been used to protect American oil interests in foreign countries and thus prevent the nationalization of natural resources in foreign countries in order to exploit these natural resources. Consumption – as well as the fact that more than two-thirds of the American economy relies on consumption – means that addiction is behind not only the “opioid epidemic” which struck America in the 21st century, but it is also the case that addiction is behind the reliance on oil, given that the price and supply of oil affects the price of other commodities, goods, and products, and thus affects the overall scheme of consumption. Arguably, consumption and over-consumption in America is a social malady which has economic and political implications, all of which benefits a few people at the top and caters to their interests at the expense of regular people. 

Then there is the issue of weapons. As mentioned before, about half of American exports are weapons and about 70 or 80 percent of Washington’s budget goes to the military. Hence, liberal provocations such as the ones we saw over Taiwan on the part of Nancy Pelosi and Congress in recent days and weeks as well as the provocations over Ukraine which led to the war there is aimed at fostering war so that American weapons can continue circulating everywhere. As Robert Gates came to realize when he assumed the top position at the Pentagon, Afghanistan was merely a test site for novel American gadgets and weapons. Yet, despite Washington’s reliance on weapons and war as a major sector of its economy, Washington has been unable to topple Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran, and in turn, Washington’s perpetuation of gun-slinging and war has led to the perception around the world that America is the biggest threat to global peace and stability. 

This perception around the world of America being the biggest threat to global peace and stability is reflected not only in Chinese foreign ministry press conferences and Vladimir Putin’s comments in Geneva, but also in Western polling as well, as noted by the author and writer Andrei Martyanov. In turn, the perception around the globe of America being the biggest threat to world peace and stability leads to a decline in American influence around the world as well as the demise of American diplomacy as an important tool of American foreign policy and statecraft. The issue of the decline in American influence around the world and the demise of American diplomacy because of American militarism and American warmongering is a subject that has been covered in-depth by the American author and writer Ronan Farrow in a book titled “War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence.” From both an international relations and international law perspective, undermining global peace and stability is perhaps the one single ‘unpardonable sin’ one can be guilty of, and yet Washington is guilty of it, which in turn leads to all the psychosocial problems we are now witnessing on a global scale.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s