Wars and Conflicts in the World’s Reconfiguration
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 29 July 2014
by José Blanco (link to original)
(Mexico) on 29 July 2014
by José Blanco (link to original)
Translated from
by Jessica Fernandez Rhodes.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The world is heading toward a political and economic reconfiguration, with no arrival station or set deadline. It is a process full of serious threats, which, apparently, will keep growing more and more. We only know that some forces are marching toward a multipolar world, and the United States will try with all of its resources to remain the one and only tyrant and irrefutable center of the planet. Perhaps the biggest train wreck in human history is taking shape, and its consequences could erase an unimaginable portion of the human race from the planet. For now, the U.S. has its political and economic forces concentrated mainly against Russia, with a reluctant European Union tagging along.
The U.S. made a timid effort to restore its supremacy during Jimmy Carter’s administration, convinced as he was that the world would march toward multipolarity; however, the cowboy Ronald Reagan arrived, claiming that Carter was a lunatic. The vast majority of the right wing, which populates the empire, was on Reagan’s side, whom they elected in 1980, and he immediately launched a brutal display of what the empire is supposed to do with the economy and weapons.
He implemented Reaganomics (or “supply-side economics”), according to which growth is achieved through methods that increase aggregate supply by reducing barriers for people who produce goods and services (supply), such as tax reduction and a high “flexibility” through deregulation. He defined the USSR as the “evil empire,” and thus boosted the arms race. As the vandal that he was, he gave the first vicious slap against a terrible force: Grenada, a small island off the coast of Venezuela. Then came the supply of weapons to Iran when it was at war against Iraq, the supply of weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua and the brutal bombing of Libya. From that moment, the U.S. established an international domination with guns blazing.
Obama arrived and started talking timidly about a kind of international New Deal, but the right wing crushed him immediately. The powerful U.S. right wing of today has a realistic view of the threat to its interests. It has seen how, amid the shrapnel fired by the U.S. here and there, new countries have advanced and become medium international powers; it sees that, should the trend continue like this – amidst the financial crisis that gestated with Reagan and in which the U.S. and the EU are trapped – it will inevitably lose positions of power to make way for this international reconfiguration, which remains hazy for now.
The Uppsala Conflict Data Program, recognized by the United Nations, registered eight wars or conflicts of major intensity level (with more than 1,000 deaths per year), some in critical moments and others suffering sequels that profoundly affect the populations where they are located: 1) the war in Afghanistan; 2) the war in Somalia; 3) the war in northwest Pakistan; 4) Mexico’s drug war; 5) the civil war in Syria; 6) the Iraqi insurgency; 7) the Islamist insurgency in Egypt; and 8) the South Sudan conflict. All of these were initiated in this century.
In 2014: 1) the Northern Iraq offensive with Syria’s involvement; Islamist extremists have announced the formation of a caliphate that would include Syria and Iraq; 2) the savage Operation Protective Edge, in which Israel’s government is destroying the Gaza strip; and 3) the civil war in Ukraine and the international conflict surrounding it. This last collision between the U.S. and some of its allies, uncertain to some extent, with Russia on the other side, has the greatest potential of becoming a global threat.
Besides the ones already mentioned, the Uppsala Program registers 33 wars, conflicts and insurgencies of different intensity, most being in Africa and the Muslim world, with some in Asia (specifically Korea, India/Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, India’s insurgence, the insurgence in Philippines, Yemen, etc.).
The advance of the political and economic reconfiguration of the planet will presumably bring more wars and conflicts; perhaps some of the greatest will come (it is already happening) from the decrease in the area of influence of the dollar’s criminal system.
Two outstanding examples of what the U.S. is willing to do is the fate suffered by Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. They both tried to change the rules of the game, seeking to make it easier for oil to be marketed in other currencies; Hussein said so to the European Union in 2000. He clearly stated his desire to trade Iraqi oil in euros and to promote this coin as a strong competitor with the dollar. But the U.S., bypassing any international regulation, created the false war against “weapons of mass destruction” (which never existed) to kill Saddam and take over Iraq and its oil. Nowadays, Iraq is a U.S. colony; because of this, it is not strange that Ukrainian gold now figures as part of the assets of the U.S. We will be writing about this.
The U.S. made a timid effort to restore its supremacy during Jimmy Carter’s administration, convinced as he was that the world would march toward multipolarity; however, the cowboy Ronald Reagan arrived, claiming that Carter was a lunatic. The vast majority of the right wing, which populates the empire, was on Reagan’s side, whom they elected in 1980, and he immediately launched a brutal display of what the empire is supposed to do with the economy and weapons.
He implemented Reaganomics (or “supply-side economics”), according to which growth is achieved through methods that increase aggregate supply by reducing barriers for people who produce goods and services (supply), such as tax reduction and a high “flexibility” through deregulation. He defined the USSR as the “evil empire,” and thus boosted the arms race. As the vandal that he was, he gave the first vicious slap against a terrible force: Grenada, a small island off the coast of Venezuela. Then came the supply of weapons to Iran when it was at war against Iraq, the supply of weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua and the brutal bombing of Libya. From that moment, the U.S. established an international domination with guns blazing.
Obama arrived and started talking timidly about a kind of international New Deal, but the right wing crushed him immediately. The powerful U.S. right wing of today has a realistic view of the threat to its interests. It has seen how, amid the shrapnel fired by the U.S. here and there, new countries have advanced and become medium international powers; it sees that, should the trend continue like this – amidst the financial crisis that gestated with Reagan and in which the U.S. and the EU are trapped – it will inevitably lose positions of power to make way for this international reconfiguration, which remains hazy for now.
The Uppsala Conflict Data Program, recognized by the United Nations, registered eight wars or conflicts of major intensity level (with more than 1,000 deaths per year), some in critical moments and others suffering sequels that profoundly affect the populations where they are located: 1) the war in Afghanistan; 2) the war in Somalia; 3) the war in northwest Pakistan; 4) Mexico’s drug war; 5) the civil war in Syria; 6) the Iraqi insurgency; 7) the Islamist insurgency in Egypt; and 8) the South Sudan conflict. All of these were initiated in this century.
In 2014: 1) the Northern Iraq offensive with Syria’s involvement; Islamist extremists have announced the formation of a caliphate that would include Syria and Iraq; 2) the savage Operation Protective Edge, in which Israel’s government is destroying the Gaza strip; and 3) the civil war in Ukraine and the international conflict surrounding it. This last collision between the U.S. and some of its allies, uncertain to some extent, with Russia on the other side, has the greatest potential of becoming a global threat.
Besides the ones already mentioned, the Uppsala Program registers 33 wars, conflicts and insurgencies of different intensity, most being in Africa and the Muslim world, with some in Asia (specifically Korea, India/Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, India’s insurgence, the insurgence in Philippines, Yemen, etc.).
The advance of the political and economic reconfiguration of the planet will presumably bring more wars and conflicts; perhaps some of the greatest will come (it is already happening) from the decrease in the area of influence of the dollar’s criminal system.
Two outstanding examples of what the U.S. is willing to do is the fate suffered by Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. They both tried to change the rules of the game, seeking to make it easier for oil to be marketed in other currencies; Hussein said so to the European Union in 2000. He clearly stated his desire to trade Iraqi oil in euros and to promote this coin as a strong competitor with the dollar. But the U.S., bypassing any international regulation, created the false war against “weapons of mass destruction” (which never existed) to kill Saddam and take over Iraq and its oil. Nowadays, Iraq is a U.S. colony; because of this, it is not strange that Ukrainian gold now figures as part of the assets of the U.S. We will be writing about this.