Dyer warns of "Pax Americana"
By GERRY WARNER
Cranbrook Daily Townsman
March 27, 2006
Renowned author, historian and political commentator Gwynne Dyer enthralled an audience of close to 400 at the College of the Rockies gym Thursday witha 90 minute address on recent events in the Middle East and the war on terrorism.
Wearing his trademark leather jacket, Dyer treated his audience to a virtual tour de force explaining the strategies that lead to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the breakdown in world order that has accompanied the conflicts. The implications of the breakdown are alarming because it has led to theUnited States acting on its own without recourse to the United Nations, the body in charge of maintaining world peace for the last 61 years. As a result, neo-conservative forces in the administration of President George Bush advocate replacing the U.N. with a policy of "Pax Americana"that leaves the U.S. -- the world's sole superpower -- acting as the world's policeman, or "vigilante" as Dyer put it, trying to impose an "American protectorate" on the world.
This has serious implications, he says. "I don't know what it's all about, but I do know it's not about terrorism. It's about how we run the world and all I can do is wish us luck."
Dyer said Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" speech in January 2002 when he branded North Korea, Iran and Iraq as evil enemies of America, marked a huge change in American foreign policy. "That's when the subject changed and the world got weird and it hasn't made sense since."
But he said the so-called "War on Terror" is basically a side show to what the neo-cons fear the most, the rise of China to superpower status. Since the terror attacks of 9/11, the U.S. has been posting more troops in Asia, many of them not far from China's borders. Last month, President Bush signed a 10-year military agreement with India, an emerging superpower itself armed with nuclear weapons on China's border. The U.S. is also a big presence in Japan, South Korea and Iraq, all close to China's borders."I think China is twitchy and I really don't blame them for getting twitchy," Dyer said. "China is practically surrounded by U.S. troops and I wish the U.S. would stop making military alliances with China's neighbors."
Dyer said he also worries about "Pax Americana" as the new way to bring peace and democracy to the world. It's based on the premise "trust us; we're American" but that makes a lot of countries in the world uncomfortable, Dyer said."That's why no other great powers followed them into Iraq except for the Brits and they're not very happy about it."
Dyer said the U.S. with its "axis of evil" rhetoric and polices of unilateralism and launching preemptive strikes against countries it thinks might threaten it is in danger of becoming what it supposedly fears, a rogue state. The war against Iraq was the "launch vehicle" for the Pax Americana policy and bypassing the U.N. "These guys (the neo-cons) got hubris coming out of their ears," said Dyer. "They see it as America's duty to take down the bad guys and bring them democracy and the free market."
But there is another possible motive to the Iraq war that has nothing to do with terrorism, he said. China's emerging industrial economy is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil while the U.S. only gets 11 per cent of its oil supply from the Gulf. "So wouldn't it be nice for the Americans if they had a hand on the tap of Chinese oil."Dyer was also scornful of the notion that the war against Iraq had anything to do with terrorism, pointing out that the first item on the agenda of theNational Security Council after Bush was elected in 2001 was the invasion of Iraq, some eight months before 9/11 occurred. "The American public would never had followed them into Iraq before 9/11. That made the sale for them overnight. It was a Godsend for the neo-cons. I don't think they actually saw it coming, but as soon as it did, Afghanistan was off the table and Iraq was on."
Dyer pointed out that the Americans primarily used air power in Afghanistan and never put more than 500 troops on the ground and let dissident Afghan forces and U.N. troops do most of the fighting. This was keeping with the fact that the war in Afghanistan was a legal war authorized by two UN resolutions. But there was no U.N. sanction for the war in Iraq, which is an illegal war and entirely an American production along with the so-called "Coalition of the Willing," which is growing smaller every day.
Dyer said it's distressing that the current U.S. administration has chosen a unilateral path for its foreign policy and chooses to act alone without the sanction of the U.N. or other international bodies. This is highly ironic because the U.S. was one of the original founders of the United Nations whose prime purpose was to bring an end to war. "And it was making progress and the key to that progress was making war illegal and since the founding of the U.N. no great powers have gone to war against each other . . . We can't afford to let this go . . . The U.N is the biggest single obstacle to the U.S. having a free-fire zone in the world."
-- 30 --
posted by Warner Family Views @ 10:03 PM
0 comments
