By Fabio Reis Vianna for the Saker Blog
At the end of the tragic year 2020, Jake Sullivan launched a tweet urging Europeans to act together in the face of “China’s worrying economic behavior.”
Today’s National Security Advisor to the newly sworn-in Democratic administration thus gave the first signs of what the Joe Biden administration would look like to the traditional allies of the United States.
Sullivan’s words not only confirm the use of Twitter as an efficient and routine diplomatic instrument of global scope, but also inaugurate the rhetoric that should shape what some analysts already call the Biden Doctrine.
The aggressive attitude of the Trump administration, which in the end revealed itself concretely in pure rhetoric – since surprisingly Trump, in his own words, was the first president in “decades” that did not initiate “new wars” – was certainly not a point out of the curve in the impositive conduct and with imperial bias that the United States has been deepening uninterruptedly since 1991.
Having been the first demonstration of military and technological power of the new unipolar liberal order born of the iron curtain debris, the first Gulf War could be considered the inaugural staging of the U.S. path toward a global military empire.
An absolutely unnecessary war against a defenseless enemy that served only as a parameter setter; the institution of a coercive power based on the control of a feeling that paralyzes anyone who dares to challenge this power: fear.
The control of fear, or the principle of limit, represented above all a warning to the rest of the world that the winner of the cold war, who paradoxically was won without a (hot) war, will not admit to being challenged under any circumstances.
The national security strategy of 2017, as if in a written confession, only outlined and made official what in practice had been happening and deepening since that fateful war of 1991.
In practice, the 2017 national security strategy is a more forceful warning to emerging and “revisionist” powers, especially Russia and China, that the model of global governance regulated by the liberal international order – in force throughout the postwar period – is over. Welcome to the old Westphalian order.
In this new (old) scenario of permanent competition among sovereign states, the United States therefore assumes, without subterfuge, that its own national interest will guide its actions. And if necessary with the use of force.
Biden’s own economic strategy seems to imply a continuation of the nationalist line initiated in the Trump administration, even if a softer rhetoric and democratic style is being rehearsed.
Realizing where the wind is blowing – even if late and at the end of her term – Angela Merkel rushed to demonstrate to Beijing the concrete European interest in concluding the comprehensive investment agreement as soon as possible.
Sniffing the opportunity, Xi Jinping ends up facilitating the agreement by giving in to a series of very expensive concessions to the European interest, mainly the one concerning the non obligatory technology transfer by European companies that will settle in China.
Most likely the Chinese leader sought to take advantage of the transition period to anticipate the agreement before Joe Biden actually took the presidential seat.
A wake-up call to Chinese and European leaders may have been the document signed by Jake Sullivan himself entitled “Making U.S. Foreign Policy Work Better for the Middle Class.
The document published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace practically anticipates the economic bias of the strategy to be followed by the Biden administration.
It is an ode to the reconstruction of the post-Pandemic American economy with a focus on the national interest, and is in fact a continuation of Trump’s sovereignist policy, but with tones more to the left.
Thus, those who think that the Biden doctrine will be a resumption of the economic liberalism of the Democratic governments that preceded it are mistaken; on the contrary, everything leads us to believe that the erratic way in which the United States has dealt domestically in containing the pandemic – which has drastically affected its role as global leader – will lead to an aggressive reaction not only in economic terms, but especially in military terms.
It is undeniable that the leadership vacuum generated by American incompetence in fighting the pandemic has accelerated an increase in rivalries and competition in the world system.
An increase in the escalation of military tensions that has already been observed in several regions of the planet and has accelerated dramatically with the advent of the plague.
The resurgence of ancient empires such as China, India, Turkey and Russia itself – which, using the same mechanisms of the power game invented by Westerners, has shown impressive strength and resilience during the pandemic crisis – seems to have raised the alarm even from old Europe.
De facto inventors of the world system in place since their small national states began the expansive adventure about five hundred years ago, Europeans are now at a real existential crossroads.
What allowed the expansion out of these small and bellicose territories was precisely the violent internal competition between them, which even prevented Europe from becoming a unified empire.
Time and destiny ironically come to throw the weight of this new era of empires into the lap of a Europe more divided than ever.
Most likely aware of the challenges ahead, Angela Merkel affirmed last January 26 in Davos the importance of the pandemic as a test “of the resilience of our systems and societies” and that “our vulnerability has become obvious.
Europe’s paradox is that without a peaceful, strong and unified EU, it will lag behind. But the strength that has always allowed Europe to accumulate power and wealth over centuries has been precisely this chaotic machine of war, violence and internal competition.
Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.
The dissolution of the BRICS project, and Merkel’s unilateral immigration assault against European unity, were clear signs that the future would revert to nationalism..
Mr Putin suggested as much in his recent Davos speech..
“All for one, one for all” was a pleasant pipe-dream, but the reality is “one on none, all for naught”..
Only the Asian bloc is proceeding in a unified economic program of cooperation, rather than confrontation, and early-on contained the Covid contagion which has turned the entire western world into a laughingstock by comparison..
With an on-going civil war, an occupied Capitol, and extortion charges recently re-opened against him in Ukraine, it might behoove the senile Biden to get his own house in order; a dysfunctional insane-asylum though it may be..
“Having been the first demonstration of military and technological power of the new unipolar liberal order born of the iron curtain debris, the first Gulf War could be considered the inaugural staging of the U.S. path toward a global military empire”. Well, not quite. This global military power (a copy of other military empires, like the Roman one) began nibbling away back in the 19th century with the Spanish-American War of 1898, giving the US overseas territories.
The US military empire was created during World War Two, when the US both created and financed Hitler in Germany and provoked a war with Japan in the Pacific. The US entered the war when it became apparent that Hitler would be defeated before the gates of Moscow, as he was. The intent was to save Hitler and prevent Russians from entering Paris, as they did in 1814. The US military is still in Germany plus other European countries.
Since Hitler, like Napoleon, failed in his invasion and break up of Russia (and both were financed by bankers), “flanking” tactics were used for the task. The intent was to draw China away from Russia, preventing a possible political and economic alliance and weakening Russia. The US fights the Korean and Vietnam wars. Both countries have borders with China. The plan was for US troops to be placed in both countries, so that a pincer attack could be launched against China once the country was destabilized. The plan failed. After that Nixon sends Kissinger to China in an effort to bring China politically and economically into the Western camp. The Chinese play along, but do not turn their backs on Russia. They had no intent of falling for simple divide and conquer tactics.
The US then fights wars in the Middle East and turns to Ukraine, launching a coup d’etat in 2014 and hoping to drag Ukraine into NATO, so that NATO could have troops and missiles on the Russian border, and above all, grabbing Sevastopol in the Crimea. The intent was for Russia to be destabilized and after that invaded and broken up, all in the name of “democracy” and “human rights”. What happened after that is well known. Things did not turn out as Washington expected.
And what do we have today ? Well, we do have some sort of US Empire, but a very heterogeneous one. Yes, all empires were heterogeneous, held together by military force. However, the US Empire is the most heterogeneous of all, Washington having trouble holding it together. The US is fighting in Syria and Afghanistan, facing trouble in Iraq, seeing frustration against it in Europe, is in conflict situations with China, North Korea and Iran. It’s not even worth mentioning it’s permanent conflict, political and economic, with Russia. These are the well known examples, and do not include other, less publicized, low intensity political conflicts, like frustration in South Korea with Washington’s attempts to drag it into a conflict with North Korea, which led to covert North-South negotiations.
And the future for the US Empire ? It has none. The Empire is made up of client states, which are expected to follow US political and economic interests. Few are prepared to do so. Germany, for example, has stood up to the US when it comes to terminating the Nord Stream – 2 gas pipeline. Even little Denmark refused to cancel the construction of the pipeline.
The point is that the US, backed by Wall Street, is unsuitable for any empire building. The predatory mentality of Wall Street will certainly ensure that the Empire collapses. For example, the US is in Syria contrary to international law, openly plundering it’s oil. Before that it fought two wars with Iraq, forcing the country to continue selling it’s oil in dollars, while in 2003, after the second war, it forced the new Iraqi Government to sign over some 82 % of it’s oil fields to Anglo-American companies.
The Empire is cracking up. Biden, after a soft coup d’etat against Trump, was installed into the White House to both patch up and save the Empire, using imperial methods. All this will do is speed up the dissolution process. No empire has survived. The American one will be the shortest lived in history.
You could add the first US invasion of Korea in 1865.
According to w-pedia, it was in 1871: “It took place predominantly on and around Ganghwa Island. The reason for the presence of the American land and naval force in Korea was to support an American diplomatic delegation sent to establish trade and political relations with the peninsular nation, to ascertain the fate of the merchant ship General Sherman, and to establish a treaty assuring aid for shipwrecked sailors. When Korean shore batteries attacked two American warships on 1 June, a punitive expedition was launched 10 days later after the commanding American admiral failed to receive an official apology from the Koreans. The isolationist nature of the Joseon dynasty government and the assertiveness of the Americans led to a misunderstanding between the two parties that changed a diplomatic expedition into an armed conflict. On 10 June, about 650 Americans landed and captured several forts, killing over 200 Korean troops with a loss of only three American soldiers dead. Korea continued to refuse to negotiate with the United States until 1882.”
Yup, sounds like standard US tactics (e.g., “support” for lunatic US businessmen led to the taking over of Hawaii, in 1893).
Wouldn’t you add Iran to your list of resurgence empires?
@Time and destiny ironically come to throw the weight of this new era of empires into the lap of a Europe more divided than ever.
This is b/c the real issues leading to the world wars, still has yet to be addressed by these western countries, they prefer to fall back on, and use, the denial and military cards.
This time they are confronted on all sides and will either yield or more likely go down fighting as following is not an option here.
The Khazarians and the Anglos went to great lengths to write their version of the causes of WW1 into the history books, because if the truth were known, the American people would be aware of the war waged against them instigated by none other than the Khazarians. Their current operation is a civil war against the whites which is exuberating race relations and causing political instability in preparation for a total takeover (Klaus Schwab). More people need to become aware of this and stop supporting the businesses and country (the one we are forbidden to criticize) and exercise boycotts of their products. The orchestration of advertising, employment, and brainwashing by the controlled entities should make this apparent.
This has more to do with the laws of nature vs the current defective human law now being imposed on populations.
so, according to these people, ‘leadership’ and ‘resilience’ actually mean cracking down on people with arbitrary and despotic restrictions.
Funny how the supposed ‘dictator’ lukashenko refused to show that kind of ‘leadership’ when he turned down IMF demands for lockdowns , closures of businesses, masks, and the whole package, and rejected their blood money. theyve been howling and screaming at him relentlessly for daring to reject their ‘offer’!
we could use a lot less ‘leadership’ , then, if actual humans are going to live free and peaceful lives!
The Terrorists demand to be coddled! Media alarms set off demanding that we stop calling terrorists terrorists!
I refuse to back down and be intimidated by such rhetoric. It is a form of a psy-op. It is the establishment who have been terrorizing the country in broad daylight with the scamdemic demanding not to be called terrorists, while they are terrorizing us! No need to open any secret investigations! They are doing it right out in the open! Obviously, they are trying to insist that if we talk about domestic terrorists, that we will be responsible for their actions, which is not true! They are terrorists! I am not asking anyone to increase surveillance, in fact, I am demanding that the terrorists start abiding by the constitution! The constitution places clear boundaries on the governments, corporations, and individuals and the constitution commands that the rights of the individual are not violated! The constitution also guarantees the rights of individuals in its amendments. I do not give a damn if they object to being called terrorists while they have been and still are terrorizing me!
Andrea Iravani
Fabio
Just as it got interesting, you stopped. I say “encore”! Please, if you would be so kind, draw a more detailed comparison between the mayhem of medieval Europe and the suffocating Germanic technocracy of the EU. How did that happen? I would be very interested. Thank you for the article and best wishes.
Agreed and seconded.
I would like to see the further deroulement of this analysis.
Thanks for the first part.
As more than a dozen foreign diplomats attend Navalny trial, West must resist temptation to interfere in Russian affairs – Kremlin
Russian officials have expressed concern over the potential for foreign interference in the trial of jailed opposition figure Alexey Navalny, after Western diplomats arrived en masse at his hearing on Tuesday.
RT. Feb, 02, 2021
But the real question here is: Why the Kremlin keeps allowing this ridiculous nonsense…? Imagine what would have happened if diplomats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba had started showing up in the Court hearings of the people detained in Washington because of the events of Jan., 06. Can you imagine the uproar among the hypocritical Western MSM…? That is what I find revolting. Why Putin and Co. feel they have to be always accepting a submissive role in every single confrontation with the US NATO gang, why do they feel that they always have to be giving excuses and explanations to them (“Why didn’t you congratulate Biden, Vlad, after CNN declared him the winner, are you planning something..?” “And why are you arresting Soros-CIA funded provocateurs trying to destabilize your country, trying to take you down, is that what you call a Russian free and democratic country…?” Putin” “Well, well, sorry if you feel bad about that, but we are treating these people very well, we have respected their civil rights so I don’t know why you are so upset, why you are complaining. You can see yourself when crashing our judicial procedure…!”. That is the only and real change Russia needs now, for the Kremlin to stop taking this undignified, submissive role face to enemies who want to destroy Russia. Forbid the access to those hearing to all foreign representatives, period, they have no place there if they are not appointed lawyers working the case.
For the first time in years, the Pindos have sent their navy into the Black Sea.
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/01/two-us-destroyers-enter-black-sea-russia-responds/
Alexey Navalny jailed for over 2.5 years as Moscow Court says he violated terms of suspended sentence in ‘Yves Rocher’ fraud case.
RT
Great news. And while at it, the Russian should immediately pass now a law criminalizing the display in public of protest signs in languages others than the ones that are widely spoken in the country, especially if those signs are in English. If you are a follower of this Navalny character you have absolutely no reason to try to make your point within Russian territory in any language other than Russian; you have no excuse for that other than to show your foreign paymasters that you are doing the job they paid you for. The “excuse” that the world at large must understand your message is worthless, without any base or justification. For many decades I have seen unfolding in front of me the tumultuous life of Latin American politics (including regime changes, revolutions, military coups, etc) and I have never ever seen anyone displaying their signs in languages others than Spanish or Portuguese (except maybe the servants of the empire of course, like the Guaido followers) In Chile the Pinochet dictatorship lasted for 17 years during which time many protest demonstrations took place, with a death toll in the maybe hundreds, and yet I don’t remember having seen, in the news or personally, one single sign in those protests in other language than Spanish. And yet, the struggle of the Chilean people provoked a wave of sympathy around the world second only to that caused because of the U.S. war on Vietnam only a decade before (even Tony Blair was by then in the streets protesting against Pinochet). This is moire than enough proof that when people have a legitimate beef against their government or rulers they don’t need to express their protest in any foreign language, let alone that of the empire.
Thank You for the insightful analysis.
Your command of language and depth of knowledge is commendable.
“Europe’s paradox is that without a peaceful, strong and unified EU, it will lag behind. But the strength that has always allowed Europe to accumulate power and wealth over centuries has been precisely this chaotic machine of war, violence and internal competition.”
In what sense will Europe be left behind if the way to wealth and power is through chaos, violence, internal competition and war? This seems to be a serious contradiction. If anything it is peace that has given us mad, imperial governments demanding submission of the populations they rule to lunacy.
The survival of the current states grows increasingly irrelevant. They have misruled their own people and have through intemperate allowance of immigration totally denied their historical claims to authority. They are simply brigands ruling over an increasingly inchoate mass. If the the US and EU go, or even France, Germany, England, etc. should we really morn?
There is as much reason to celebrate the collapse of the old order which we have known in our lifetimes as a good thing as to condemn it as a bad thing. Just as Joe Biden appears daft, senile and suffering from dementia so does the West. These ancient institutions appear close to their time. A surprise no doubt to many of their subjects and citizens but increasingly evident in their behavior.
It is easy to see the future as a breakup of the old order, and a struggle for a new order among states whose only motive is survival and, given survival, preeminence despite their internal propaganda. The populations they rule will simply be forced along for the ride and punished for any lack of enthusiasm for the reigning ideology. Why should anyone care about that?
States then exist because they can exist and like animals strive for their own advancement. Illusions of justice, morality, prosperity for the populations ruled pass into history. There is nothing left but power.
The peoples ruled are collectively important to power but individually are no more important than the cells of one’s own body. These states far from representing the interests of the people comprising them have become super-organisms whose people are mere cells of their bodies.
So why not small states comprising those who dissent from these struggling behemoths? This may make more sense than taking the struggling empires seriously. A world of small, cutthroat states may be more fulfilling than anything in recent imagination, offer discipline, and wealth to many with no future in the imperial orders and ultimately feast on the corpses of their betters. The struggle for peace and order, however enticing, may well be the struggle for senescence and decline.
The assertions are common and extremely misleading and disingenuos that Americans stole land from Mexicans. Hardly any Mexicans ever lived in what is currently the United States prior to manifest destiny doctrine. and there it happened 200 years ago. It was in 1819 that the states that are now currently Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada were ceded over to Mexico by the Spaniards. The Spaniards were brutal dictators that toppled the Incas and the Aztecs. The Spaniards enslaved local populations, as did the Portuguese. Over 90% of indeigenous populations microbial diseases of Europeans. Europeans had inherent resistences to such diseases, including small pox. The overwhelming majority of hispanic people today are decendants of Spanish, Portuguese, and ( African decent, in Brazil primarily ). There are extremely few indigenous people living in the Americas.
In 1821, the newly created Mexican government intended to expand into what is currently Texas. They offered cheap land to anyone that was willing to become a citizen of Mexico, and Catholic. The overwhelming majority of people that took them up on that offer were Americans. There were relatively few people in Texas prior to that. The offer by the Mexican government resulted in 15,000 Americans migriting to Texas, and only 5,000 Mexicans migrating to Texas. Americans were the majority of people in Texas from the start of Mexico’s shortlived attempted expansion into Mexico.
So, are they arguing that those states should belong to Spain that conquered American Indigenous lands, or Mexico, which negotiated those states from Spain?
That is the equivalent of the British granting The Land Of Palestine to the Jewish people for the creation of Israel.
These are attempts used to make Americans feel guilty for living in America.
Andrea Iravani
In the Global Rresearch article link below, Madea Benjamin and Nocolas J.S. Davies assert:
“Americans were not always so ignorant of the imperial nature of their country’s ambitions. George Washington described New York as “the seat of an empire,” and his military campaign against British forces there as the “pathway to empire.” New Yorkers eagerly embraced their state’s identity as the Empire State, which is still enshrined in the Empire State Building and on New York State license plates.”
“The expansion of America’s territorial sovereignty over Native American lands, the Louisiana Purchase and the annexation of northern Mexico in the Mexican-American War built an empire that far outstripped the one that George Washington built. But that imperial expansion was more controversial than most Americans realize. Fourteen out of fifty-two U.S. senators voted against the 1848 treaty to annex most of Mexico, without which Americans might still be visiting California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Utah and most of Colorado as exotic Mexican travel spots.” Madea Benjamen and Nicolas J.S. Davies.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/decline-fall-american-empire/5736365
Andrea Iravani
In 1821 Mexican government did not intend ‘to expand’ into what is currently Texas and former Spanish territories. Mexico ‘inherited’ most of the Viceroyalty of New Spain territories in America. The border with USA was established by the Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) and confirmed by the ‘Treaty of Limits between the United Mexican States and the United States of America’ of 1828. No doubt can exist that the ‘Texas Revolution’ of 1836 was instigated by the USA with the goal of annexation and the further goal of annexing all former territories of New Spain (and from there going after Spanish territories overseas -Philippines), which they realized after the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 (strangely enough they struck gold in California next day!). Nobody can swallow anymore the BS that it was a ‘liberation war’ against dictatorship and Catholic Church, except of course the Americans who cannot admit that the ‘exceptional’ people can have any ‘guilt’). But it is indeed the equivalent of granting Palestine to the Jewish people. ‘Americans’ painted themselves, from day one of their landing in America, as the ‘New Israel’ conquering the Canaan.
Mod: Please try to stick to the topic of each article. Thank-you.
There is an explosive video documentary on the US Presidential election foreign cyber attack
https://skagitrepublicans.com/EXPLOSIVEDOCUMENTARYONTHE2020ELECTIONABSOLUTEPROOFINCLUDESTESTIMONYANDINTERVIEWSFROMEXPERTSONHISTORI