The United States Has Taken a Disturbing Turn

Published in El Diario Exterior
(Spain) on 5 May 2017
by Alberto Benegas Lynch (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Elin Gardiner-Smith. Edited by Christine Murrison.
For everyone who looks to the American tradition as a bastion of liberty, the direction that this country has recently taken, which runs counter to the values and principles professed by the Founding Fathers, seems sad and worrying.

Donald Trump has begun his administration insulting journalists with whom he does not agree and denying access to White House press conferences as if he were the owner of the place. Instead of expressing his disagreement, he chooses to claim that his opponents are dishonest. Instead of safeguarding the sacred freedom of speech which should be the hallmark of a republic, he inclines toward aggression.

On two consecutive instances, after Trump's xenophobic executive orders were halted by legal means, Trump reacted with harsh remarks, completely at odds with the presidential bearing necessary for the separation of powers. He reacted inappropriately in the same way with members of the legislative branch when his proposal to reform the health care system was shut down. Trump's proposed reform would have replaced the current system with another system that had just as many fundamental flaws.

Trump began his administration, then, with repeated attacks on basic institutions, to which he added tax breaks at odds with announcements for astronomical increases in public spending. These actions are the best way to provoke a massive fiscal crisis that would be even bigger than the still-present crisis if you take into account the meaning of the colossal debt which now exceeds one hundred percent of the GDP.

With this unfavorable beginning and with a highly negative image in the eye of the public and most of the reputable press, and without seeking counsel or the approval of Congress, he gave the order to bomb Syria. The facts of the poisonous and lethal gas attack are still unknown and as three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, among others, has emphasized, it is still not completely certain whether it was caused by rebels against the tyrant Basha al-Assad or by al-Assad himself. And then there was the deployment of the "mother of all bombs" over Afghanistan, which has increased the conflict in these areas and between allies. This attack helped to revive the nationalistic spirit that already characterized the new government of the United States, a spirit that is in line with the electoral tumults of Europe: In France, the National Front; in Germany, the Alternative for Germany; in Denmark, the Danish People's Party; in Switzerland, the Swiss Democrats; in Spain, Podemos; in Austria, the Freedom Party; in Italy, the North League; in Hungary, the Movement for a Better Hungary; and in England, the nationalist appeal of Brexit.*

In any case, the discussion hinges on the role of the United States as a global policing force. And for that, there is no better first place to look than in the thinking of General Washington and of John Quincy Adams. The former wrote: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.”

And on his part—pay special attention—Adams advised that "[The United States of] America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all... She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom...She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

We can remember the tremendous fiascoes the United States was involved in in the 20th century in Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Korea, Serbia-Kosovo, Iran, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama and the Dominican Republic, along with the recent myth of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and the subsequent "preventive war." Ivan Eland explains the case of the Philippines in detail and concludes that "forces of the United States burned villages, destroyed harvest and livestock, tortured and executed prisoners, and killed innocent civilians." We can also remember General Eisenhower, who, in his presidential farewell speech warned that "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex...We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."**

Niall Ferguson, one of the pioneers of counter-factual history, calls the participation of the United States in World War II into question, due to the fact that, although they eliminated the serial killer Hitler, they handed over a substantial part of Europe to Hitler 2.0 (Stalin) at the Yalta Conference. Of course, examining the question afterward, separated from the moment and the context, couldn't be more convenient.

President Truman issued a mea culpa 15 years after creating the CIA in 1945 as a substitute for the Office of Strategic Services (created during WWII), stating that he never thought that this new agency would "serve to carry out assassinations, conspiracies against governments, torture, clandestine paramilitary operations cloaked in the most basic ethics, and espionage."***

There are, without a doubt, many corrupt heads of government, but the extraordinary splendor of the United States—including its missteps—is, among other things, the result of taking seriously the values which we have illustrated with important quotations from its history. On the other hand, the bellicose actions of the United States do not seem prudent, especially given the consequences that these initiatives could have for the so-called "free world"—and given how much the situation has changed in regard to individual liberties. Under varying pretexts, today governments interfere in secret bank accounts, listen to phone calls, repeatedly abandon due process, all the while in the midst of suffocating regulations, growing tax burdens, immoral procedures such as the so-called "bailouts." Those who work but have no lobbying power must foot the bill for businessmen who are either inept, irresponsible, or both, and financial commitments are constantly pushed back in order to renovate the debt ceiling.

We should not discard the possibility that the institutional frameworks and moral reserves of that country may finally step in and limit the mess, although to judge by what happened in the last elections both traditional parties are suffering a notable decline. What is at stake is the future of everyone who wants to live in peace, even though we must co-inhabit the planet with leaders of every kind who abandon key values for others which signal the rebirth of the nationalisms that have done so much damage.

*Editor’s note: While included in this list of nationalist parties, Podemos is a left-wing populist party in Spain.
**Editor’s note: The quoted text is a paraphrase of Eisenhower’s speech.
***Editor’s note: The original quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.


LA NACIÓN – Para todos los que admiramos la tradición estadounidense como el baluarte de la libertad, resulta triste y preocupante el rumbo que ha tomado de un tiempo a esta parte ese país, a contracorriente de los valores y principios sustentados por los Padres Fundadores.

Donald Trump ha comenzado su gestión insultando a periodistas con los que no coincide y bloqueando la entrada a conferencias de prensa en la Casa Blanca como si fuera el dueño del lugar. En vez de señalar sus desacuerdos opta por decir que son deshonestos; en lugar de velar por la sacrosanta libertad de expresión que es base de una república, se inclina por la agresión.

En dos oportunidades consecutivas, al ser rechazadas por la justicia sendas resoluciones xenófobas respecto a los inmigrantes, enfrentó esos rechazos con exabruptos completamente opuestos a la necesaria actitud responsable del Poder Ejecutivo para con la división de poderes. Actuó del mismo modo intempestivo con representantes del Poder Legislativo al no ser aprobada su propuesta respecto al sistema de salud vigente que, en definitiva, pretendió sustituir por un proyecto con iguales inconvenientes centrales.

Trump inició entonces su administración con reiterados choques contra instituciones básicas, a lo que agregó reducciones de impuestos que contrastaron con anuncios de incrementos siderales en el gasto público, lo cual es lo mejor para provocar una crisis fiscal mayúscula (aún mayor que la ya latente, si se toma en cuenta el significado del nivel colosal de endeudamiento que hoy supera al ciento por ciento del PBI).

Con este inicio muy poco favorable, con alta imagen negativa en la opinión pública y en la mayor parte de la prensa de prestigio, de modo inconsulto y sin la aprobación del Congreso, dio la orden de bombardear Siria en un todavía no aclarado hecho con gas venenoso y letal del que -como destaca, entre otros, el tres veces candidato a la presidencia norteamericana Ron Paul- aún no se sabe a ciencia cierta si fue producido por los rebeldes contra el tirano Basha al-Assad o por él mismo. Y luego “la madre de todas las bombas” sobre Afganistán, lo que ha intensificado el revuelo en esas zonas y entre sus aliados, y ha ayudado a resucitar el espíritu nacionalista que ya caracterizaba al nuevo gobierno de Estados Unidos, en línea con los desmadres electorales en Europa: en Francia, el Frente Electoral; en Alemania, el Partido Alternativa para Alemania; en Dinamarca, el Partido del Pueblo Danés; en Suecia, los Demócratas Suecos; en España, Podemos; en Austria, el Partido de la Libertad; en Italia, la Liga del Norte; en Hungría, el Partido por una Hungría Mejor, y en Inglaterra, el costado nacionalista del Brexit.

En cualquier caso, el punto consiste en discutir el rol de Estados Unidos como policía del mundo. Para esto nada mejor que tomar en primer lugar el pensamiento del general Washington y también el de John Quincy Adams. El primero escribió: “Mi ardiente deseo es, y siempre ha sido, cumplir estrictamente con todos nuestros compromisos en el exterior y en lo doméstico, pero mantener a Estados Unidos fuera de toda conexión política con otros países”.

Y por su parte -préstese especial atención-, Adams consignó que “América [del Norte] no va al extranjero en busca de monstruos para destruir […] Desea la libertad y la independencia de todos. Recomienda esa causa general por el contenido de su voz y por la simpatía benigna de su ejemplo. Sabe bien que alistándose bajo otras banderas que no son la suya se involucrará más allá de la posibilidad de salir de problemas […] Podrá ser la directriz del mundo pero ya no será más la directriz de su propio espíritu”.

Recordemos los fenomenales fiascos estadounidenses en el siglo XX en Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Corea, Serbia-Kosovo, Irán, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Haití, Panamá, República Dominicana, la reciente patraña de “las armas de destrucción masiva” en Irak y la consecuente “guerra preventiva” . Ives Eland explica en detalle el caso de Filipinas y concluye que “las fuerzas de Estados Unidos incendiaron pueblos, destrozaron cosechas y ganado, torturaron y ejecutaron prisioneros y liquidaron a civiles inocentes”. Recordemos también que el general Eisenhower, en su discurso presidencial de despedida, advirtió que “el peligro mayor para las libertades del pueblo americano [norteamericano] es el complejo militar-industrial”.

Niall Ferguson, uno de los pioneros de la historia contrafáctica, pone en tela de juicio incluso la participación de Estados Unidos en la Segunda Guerra debido a que, si bien eliminaron al asesino serial de Hitler, le entregaron en Yalta a Hitler II (Stalin) una parte sustancial de Europa. Claro que mirar el tema con el diario del día después, alejados del momento y del contexto, puede no ser lo más conveniente.

El presidente Truman hizo su mea culpa quince años después de haber creado la CIA, en 1945, como sustituto de la Oficina de Asuntos Estratégicos (creada durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial) al manifestar que nunca pensó que aquella novel repartición “serviría para preparar asesinatos, conspiraciones contra gobiernos, torturas, operaciones paramilitares clandestinas reñidas con la ética más elemental, y espionajes”.

Hay sin duda muchos canallas al frente de muy diversos gobiernos, pero el extraordinario esplendor de Estados Unidos -incluidos sus desvíos- fue, entre otras cosas, el resultado de tomar con seriedad los valores que hemos ilustrado con citas de peso en su historia. Por otro lado, no parecen prudentes las acciones bélicas desplegadas por Estados Unidos, especialmente por las consecuencias que estas iniciativas puedan acarrear en el llamado mundo libre. Sobre todo cuando la situación ha cambiado en mucho respecto a las libertades individuales. Con pretextos varios , hoy se interfieren secretos bancarios, se multiplican las escuchas telefónicas, se abandona en repetidos casos el debido proceso, todo en medio de regulaciones asfixiantes, gravámenes crecientes, procedimientos inmorales como los denominados “salvatajes” por los que los que trabajan y no tienen poder de lobby debieron sufragar a empresarios ineptos, irresponsables o las dos cosas al mismo tiempo, y la pretensión de endosar compromisos financieros al futuro en una seguidilla sin término para renovar los techos normativos del endeudamiento.

No debe descartarse que los marcos institucionales de ese país y sus reservas morales finalmente se impongan y puedan poner límites a tanto sobresalto, aunque a juzgar por lo ocurrido en las últimas elecciones ambos partidos tradicionales revelan una llamativa decadencia. Está en juego el futuro de todos los que desean vivir en un clima de paz, por más que el planeta deba convivir con sátrapas de diverso color y se abandonen valores clave en pos de otros que apuntan al renacimiento de los nacionalismos que tanto daño han hecho.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Mauritius: Trump Is Ignoring the Power of Nationalism at His Own Peril

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’