Mrs. America … When Threatened!

There were no surprises at the Friends of Syria conference that just ended in Paris. It was the third such conference (after those in Istanbul and Tunisia). Even the words of the new French President Francois Hollande were pale and repetitive. The new resident of Elysee didn't create any new opportunities for differentiation in French diplomacy during his tenure. This form of French diplomacy was imposed by the new Napoleon (Sarkozy) and the chairman of old colonial diplomacy, Alain Juppe.

But the only surprise (perhaps) was that there was a space for him to maneuver in such a way, as it was Hollande's anger -- certainly without a slip of the tongue -- that tyrannized Mrs. America who is preparing to leave the position of secretary of state after six months. Really this depends on whether Barack Obama or Republican Mitt Romney will be sitting in the Oval Office at that time. Romney would be the first Mormon Christian (a Zionist) to become president of the United States, as happened with the Catholic John F. Kennedy in the early '60s.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, in an act of civil diplomacy, seemed to misuse the name of the rogue/failed state or light-hearted dictatorial regime that she threatened at the Parisian conference in front of Russia and China. She went so far as to say that Russia and China will pay the "price" for blocking progress towards "democratic" transformation in Syria!

These are strong words that are full of arrogance and contempt, and are a blatant attempt at restoring the atmosphere of the Cold War. These particular statements smell of recklessness and frivolity and they harken back to discourse used by former Republican President Ronald Reagan toward the Soviet Union. This discourse painted the image of the Soviet Union as the "Empire of Evil." After Reagan came the reckless Republican George W. Bush, who reduced the whole world to two camps, good and evil -- either with us or against us.

Here and now… You, America's Washington blonde, are recovering from using that language. However, it is your excitement, address, standing, and approaches that expose the inability of the United States to "shrink" its margins. This refers to the great international force that is America's fleets, which roam the seas of the world and dock in most parts of the globe. This doesn't include the military bases that are distributed throughout five continents. We also can't neglect the armies, watchmen, local informants, spies, agents of the American CIA, rulers, and multinationals who are loyal to the U.S.

All of this is true so far, but the difference is possibly that the United States of the last decade of this century is not the America of today. The U.S. is not the same as it was at the beginning of the new millennium, as it has imposed itself as the greatest force that leads the world while writing its own agenda.

Former President Bush and his successor, the 44th President Barack Hussein Obama, have exhausted their cities and fiscal boundaries while helping their "legendary" star of a country begin its decline. This isn't happening as quickly as we would like, but the trend towards American failure is sustained and growing (even if it is not wholly defeated) in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is becoming even more difficult for the U.S. to hide its diplomatic maneuvers (Clinton spoke in Tokyo about strategic partners in Afghanistan and trial runs which she launched). The country has even fabricated problems, civil wars, and rebellions against regimes that aren't even moving within the U.S's orbit. There is even a conspiracy about the revolutions that broke out in the Arab countries to limit their revolutionary impact to the narrowest possible outcomes. Even if the winds of spring have converted to a promising winter for Arab Islamic fundamentalists, the U.S. is holding deals with them in order to reassure their interests.

Mrs. America appears to have missed the "announcement" when she threatened Moscow and Beijing. Russia and China knew what they were facing when Washington doubled up on using the veto twice. China and Russia claimed that, "the features of the new world order will be determined by the results of the conflict happening now in Syria."

So why has Mrs. Clinton chosen this provocative path?

It is naive to think that things are as has been described above. It was a slip of the tongue, but she meant every word. The Russian response was not as delayed as the Chinese response, where Moscow's testimony described Clinton as misguided and unethical. Likewise, China did the same thing stating angrily that the Secretary of State's comments are totally unacceptable. It is not easy to threaten Russia and China, especially if the threats are coming from the U.S., which refuses to recognize that the world has changed and that the rules of the international game are taking a new shape with more visibility. The U.S. is fatigued, confused, in debt… and stupid!