Pre-emption and Unilateralism

[Editor’s note: The following article was originally written in 2004. However the core contents of the article is still very much contemporary. The 4th Media believes the reposting of this valuable article would be worthwhile for the sake of our global readers.]

Foreign policy affects everyone, but few concern themselves with the details. The “Big Picture” is ignored for the fallacy of immediate gratification. Instant satisfaction defies enduring security.

The trap that most citizens fall into, is that the subject is just too complex to bother with, what can one person do? The experts know best, they will protect us! If this mindset is realistic, why is the world such a political mess?

But more to the point, why does the United States have so many antagonists, devoted to restraining a suspect super power?

If foreigners perceived US policy as benevolent towards their own well-being, the rush to ally themselves to the red, white and blue would be the prevalent attitude. Tragically, that’s not the case. Regimes will take the bribes of carrots, but resent the conditions attached to the money.

No wonder the reaction to pre-emptive use of force is so unsettling.

The lesson of existent self interest is universal. So don’t be surprised when it eventually leads to action. Unsophisticated souls conclude that unilateralism is equivalent with the use of the pre-emptive prescription. The former is really a design for a method, while the later is a strategy for implementation.

Pre-emption is not a policy, but it can cause a remote ordeal to become a deadly blowback. You are supposed to accept the promise that it’s a solution. Preventive medicine isolates the virus, but does it cure the cancer?

Yes, renewed interest examines such a medical connection; yet in foreign affairs, admission that a durable remedy requires underlying treatment – goes ignored.

The Gulf War was perceived, by much of the world, as justified because of territorial incursion. The Iraqi invasion is globally viewed quite differently.

Calls condemning U.S. unilateralism are usually self serving. One man’s rogue terrorist cell is another’s liberation brigade. A platoon of freedom fighters combating a troop of intruders doesn’t confer moral high ground upon either side. Both may be unprincipled.

However, the error that the vast majority adopt is that a world community must give approval to indigenous self interest. Knowing what constitutes valid utility on a national scale is even more snarled and risks a fundamental mistake. The parallel that a county is identical with any government’s interest for state preservation, is a terminal blunder.

Mix into this equation competing civil powers and you have a recipe for eternal conflict. An example may illustrate the clash of cultures.

If nuclear proliferation carries with it the greatest risk for annihilation, does that mean that aspirant countries must be prevented from joining such an exclusive club? Depending upon your orientation and where you reside, the answer may be quite different. Consensus in not unqualified.

If North Korea possesses the “bomb” and Iran has a strong hunger to achieve a regional deterrence, what makes such aims so alarming? Official pronouncements condemn such regimes as outlaw threats. It is not instructive to assert that any country has an absolute right to acquire the means of total destruction.

But it is informative to demonstrate that what separates the specifics of a foreign policy is the ultimate goal of imposing the objectives of a stronger state upon a weaker country.

When Israel acquired the technology for enriched uranium, where was the outrage? When Mordechai Vanunu exposed the existence of the Dimona plutonium separation plant, where was the apprehension?

And when Israel provided South Africa with key collaboration in weapon development and purchased 550 tons of SA uranium, where was the concern? ‘So Called’ chosen allies, receive especially favorable treatment.

Now speculate the U.S. response if Japan decided that it was in their national interest to counter the North Korean atomic menace. Do you think that a genuine Asian partner would get the same special handling? Hideki is dead, but the Tojo mentality lives in a world based on distrust and hostility.

How well did the Japanese do with their sneak attack? Pre-emption perfecto, par excellence. What exactly was the lesson learned? Koukyo palace didn’t prevent Hiroshima.

Maybe Germany will discover a new found slogan – fraternity – with their EU French cousins and acquire a pipe line for heavy water.

Now that the Stasi is mainstream and those Israeli nuclear ballistic submarines, built and paid by Germans, are operational; perhaps ThyssenKrupp will reminisce over Bismarck. What would the Kaiser in the White House do? Mobilize the reserves at Ramstein . . . What did that pre-empted Barbarossa operation beget – Stalingrad and Kursk!

Unilateralism acknowledges that no country has actual allies. A country has interests, that vary over time. Other nations may periodically share goals and objectives, but to conclude that there are continuous concords, is asinine.

Significantly, governments are often at odds with their own populations. If a State is frequently in conflict with its own society, by what miracle of assurance, will separate countries seek similar and congruent foreign policies?

The naivet of basing your own interest upon a coalition of erratic affiliations of diverse cultural, economic and social systems should be apparent to even the unseasoned spectator.

For the professional diplomat the obvious must be shielded from the general public. The bureaucrat has their vested interest in the government they serve. Inconsistency with the welfare of the populace are usually resolved in favor of the State. The accords that bind countries, regularly enslave their own people. Why then is there so much loathing for a foreign policy that truly advances the real interests of a domestic population?

Your answer is provided in the dark side of our own history. The White Fleet of Teddy Roosevelt was the stick that every port sought to avoid. The Philippine-American War was a study in a failed pre-emptive colonial struggle that lasted for fourteen years. Wilson’s war to end all wars was a mistake, stemming from abandoning an established policy of rightful unilateralism.

In these cases the lack of legitimate national self interest is illustrated. The cause of Filipino independence was broken, because of an urge to maintain a sphere of influence. Making the world safe a double-faced democracy, was the outcome from repudiating our traditional foreign policy, dating back to Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

FDR’s war was a direct result of bellicose interventionist intents, dubious ally deceit, internal treachery of ill-considered commitments, and an insatiable impulse to centralize and expand the size and scope of the federal government.

A justifiable unilateralism would have been satisfied with internal development and domestic redress of nationwide issues.

There would be no need for a pre-emptive intrusion into the affairs of Asia or Europe. Even under the ambitious precepts of the Monroe Doctrine, defining unilateralism applicable to our own hemisphere, is much more than should be eagerly accepted.

The inability to recognize true national self-interest is the basic failure of U.S. foreign policy for well over a century. We should not care a damn what other countries think or say about our own affairs.

However, to achieve such a noble objective, our first order of pursuit is to mind our own business. The impotency of the last super power is the consequence from adopting a distorted and farcical design for international expediency. America First is the correct course to steer this ship of state. When will Americans ever learn?

It just may take the growth of proliferation in nuclear nations to drive home the basic point. Without a nuke, you just might get invaded. What a morose legacy that passes as the rubric of altruistic foreign policy.

Full Spectrum Dominance is not consistent with the American dream. Nor are pre-emptive strikes a force for expanding freedom. Unilateralism to extend an empire is just as idiotic.

While, unilateralism to defend our own borders is a true patriotic cause. Baghdad for the Iraqis, and the north border of the Rio Grand for Americans. The assault upon our own territory is both pre-emptive and unilateral. The flows goes one way. Our mass relocation is a departure for garrisons abroad.

Does this make sense to you? Then why continue down this same road of internationalism which has literally destroyed our nation.

The call to promote a phony solution called democracy is not new. It will fail once again. Denying valid self determination is a very shameful record. When alien aspirations collide with a preconceived version of tribute to the protector of the NWO, they are crushed. Dissent is not tolerated, only favored puppets, are supported.

It’s long overdue. Restore a viable American First respect for the rest of the world, AND FOR OURSELVES. “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. George Washington’s Farewell Address is the standard for a tangible foreign policy which actually protects our own vision of a free nation, with limited government and liberty for our own people.

SARTRE – November 14, 2004

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply