The United States and Its War Without Borders

Published in ArgenPress
(Argentina) on 3 September 2013
by Homar Garcés (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Cydney Seigerman. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
As sociologist Miguel Ángel Contreras Natera explains, "With Sept. 11, the Bush administration intensified a permanent war without territorial limits or temporal deadlines, which violates the questioned norms of international rights and puts the timid authority of the United Nations in check."

In the extraordinary case of the decisions after Sept. 11, the U.N. demonstrated its inability to restrict power when the matter at stake is the unwillingness of the United States government to obey the decisions of other nations. In its initial formulations, the Bush administration's war against terrorism succeeded in imposing a consensus around the idea that all terrorism is the same and, with a Manichean vision, promoted the exacerbation of both local and global clashes of national identity, culture or religion. The famous phrase, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," became the semiotics of the war.

Under said unilateral and undeniably imperialistic concept, the current White House tenant, Barack Obama, has developed his foreign policy in such a way that his country consequently exerts an unquestionable role as the planet's ultimate leader. The nation imposes its political, economic and military interests left and right, invoking national security as the reason. All of this has had the open and silent collusion of European governments and those of other continents that prefer supporting warlike Yankee politics to losing the opportunity to obtain a meager crumb of the spoils. The governing bodies do this without caring about violating the old principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of any sovereign country, pretending that it is for humanitarian reasons. This high-risk situation for a long-lasting peace throughout the entire world, outside of governing regimes, succeeded in having a diversified majority of social groups protest both the pretenses of the United States and the ineffectiveness (rather, collusion) of the U.N. to stop it.

In this way, many people have recently discovered that Obama is not the imagined peace campaigner who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Rather, independent of the color of his skin (the same as ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), he is part of the neoconversative political-corporate-military conglomerate that has controlled the United States since the days of the Reagan administration (the administration that armed and grouped freedom fighters for counterrevolutionary groups that fought against the first Sandinista government in Nicaragua).

Contrary to what they could allege, those who justify the militaristic actions of the global Yankee empire in a war that does not distinguish borders nor time should understand that now it is not about a confrontation on an ideological plane, as was said about the struggle between the United States and former Soviet Union in what is known historically as the Cold War. Today, something beyond geopolitical interests is at stake. It is about preserving more than peace, culture and sovereignty throughout all of our nations, since allowing the United States to continue its plans for expansion would threaten — without being sensationalist — all traces of life on Earth.


Tal como lo expone el sociólogo Miguel Ángel Contreras Natera, “con el 11 de septiembre, la administración de George W. Bush ha intensificado una guerra permanente, sin fronteras territoriales, ni plazos temporales, que viola las cuestionadas normas del Derecho internacional y pone en jaque la autoridad menguada de las Naciones Unidas.

En el caso particular de las decisiones posteriores al 11 de septiembre, la ONU demostró su ineficacia para restringir poder cuando están en juego asuntos que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos no está dispuesto a someter a la decisión de otros Estados. En sus primeras formulaciones, la guerra contra el terrorismo del gobierno de George W. Bush logró imponer un consenso alrededor de la idea de que todos los terrorismos son iguales y con una visión maniqueísta promovió la exacerbación de los enfrentamientos identitarios de carácter nacional, cultural o religioso, tanto locales como globales. La célebre frase o se está con nosotros o se está con ellos se convirtió en la semiótica de la guerra”.

Bajo tal concepción unilateralista e innegablemente imperialista, el actual inquilino de la Casa Blanca, Barack Obama, ha desarrollado su política exterior, de modo que su país ejerza en consecuencia un rol incuestionable de máximo rector del planeta, imponiendo sus intereses políticos, económicos y militares a diestra y siniestra, invocando para ello razones de seguridad nacional. Todo esto contando con la complicidad abierta y silente de los gobiernos de Europa y de los demás continentes que prefieren secundar la política guerrerista yanqui antes que perder la oportunidad de obtener alguna migaja del botín; sin importar que se viole el viejo principio de la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de cualquier país soberano, aparentando que se hace por razones humanitarias. Esta situación de alto riesgo para una paz duradera en el mundo entero, al margen de los regímenes que los gobiernan, ha logrado que una diversificada mayoría de grupos sociales estén reaccionando en contra de las pretensiones estadounidenses y ante la ineficacia (más bien, complicidad) de la ONU para frenarlas. Así, mucha gente ha descubierto tardíamente que Obama no es el imaginado paladín de la paz que premiara el Comité del Premio Nobel sino que, independientemente del color de su piel (al igual que la ex Secretaria de Estado Condolezza Rice), éste es parte de ese conglomerado político-empresarial-militar neoconservador que controla el poder en Estados Unidos desde los días de la administración de Ronald Reagan (el mismo que armara y catalogara de combatientes por la libertad a los grupos contrarrevolucionarios que enfrentaron al primer gobierno sandinista de Nicaragua).

Contrario a lo que pudieran alegar, quienes justifican las acciones belicistas del imperio global yanqui -en una guerra que no distingue frontera ni tiempo algunos, debieran molestarse en entender que ahora no se trata de una confrontación en el plano ideológico, como se quiso hacer ver a propósito de la pugna de Estados Unidos con la desaparecida Unión Soviética en lo que se conoce históricamente como la Guerra Fría. En la actualidad se hallan en grave riesgo algo más que intereses geopolíticos. Se trata de preservar, incluso, más que la paz, la cultura y la soberanía de todos nuestros pueblos, puesto que se amenazaría -sin ánimo sensacionalista- todo trazo de vida en la Tierra de permitírsele a Estados Unidos continuar con sus planes expansionistas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: The 2nd Declaration of Havana Today

Germany: A Whole Different Ballgame

Germany: Rutte Visits White House: Trump Is Angry Again

Venezuela: The ‘Shield of the Americas’ Doesn’t Help Latin America

Malaysia: Malaysia’s Goodfellas of Industry, America’s Corleones of Capital

Topics

Venezuela: The ‘Shield of the Americas’ Doesn’t Help Latin America

Spain: The Infuriating Flippancy of Donald Trump

Mexico: The 2nd Declaration of Havana Today

Germany: Rutte Visits White House: Trump Is Angry Again

Luxembourg: Escalation of Words: The US President Crosses Verbal Lines

Malaysia: Malaysia’s Goodfellas of Industry, America’s Corleones of Capital

Israel: The Theology behind Trump’s Ultimatum

Saudi Arabia: Will the Iran Ceasefire Hold for Long or Lead to Conclusive Peace?

Related Articles

Saudi Arabia: The West Fixes Its Problems…At Others’ Expense!

Venezuela: They Voted for Trump

Germany: No ‘Landslide Victory’ for Milei

Argentina: Trump Is Laying His Cards Down