Syria and the Global Hegemony of the US

To understand what U.S. interests are in Syria at this present juncture, it is important to first put the relations in place between Latin America, particularly Panama, and the U.S. The rhetoric that President Barack Obama’s administration is using to “soften” Syria’s defenses on the international stage is the same that the U.S. used in its relations with Latin America. In Guatemala, the U.S. eliminated President Arbenz’s democratic government in 1954.

A decade later, the U.S. invaded the Dominican Republic in order to overthrow the democratically elected president Juan Bosch. Another 10 years passed by and again in 1973 the U.S. intervened in Chile to bathe President Allende’s democratic government’s experiment in blood. In the 1980s, the U.S. turned Central America into a battlefield. In 1989, the U.S. military invaded Panama, bombing urban communities with terrorist-like effects. In 1995, the U.S. invaded Haiti and exiled the democratically elected President Aristide. In 2002, the U.S. led a failed attempt to overthrow the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez. All of these experiences have a common underlying factor: lies. For 70 years, the U.S. has had the military power to stand before any adversary.

For more than 10 years, it has built a castle of lies around the reality of the Arab people in order to demonize them. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan (a non-Arab country) that was unleashed in 2001 was preceded by a campaign that transformed the Taliban (students of the Quran) into terrorists. A little while later, the U.S. invaded Iraq in order to occupy its oil fields. In 2011, the U.S. invaded Libya and assassinated its leader, Gadhafi. In the case of the countries of the Middle East, the U.S. invasion created a context for redefining of the balance of power on a global scale. Washington is aware of the problems posed by the space left by the Soviet Union, China’s emergence and the decline of Europe for its global strategy. It also has to come face to face with the consolidation of Iran, the region’s permanent instability caused by Israeli politics and the weakening of America’s closest allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Ten years ago, the “New American Century” project began, which consisted of converting the U.S. into the only hegemonic power of the 21st century. To make this a reality, it contemplated holding China back and subordinating the oil-rich region of the Middle East. The new rhetoric served to present the Islamic people to the world as the enemies of the 21st century. The military objective is to destabilize the countries of the Arab region and reconstruct them according to their own vision of the world. This change on the geopolitical board would allow it to corner China, since it has become a country that is dependent on its energy imports (oil). Building off the campaigns based on lies, repeated over and over again, the U.S. managed to put doubt into the minds of the majority of people regarding the intentions of the White House. In the case of Syria, Washington’s spokespersons argue that the bombing and destruction of Syria is inevitable (the same for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) in order to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons. According to President Assad, “We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do …. We have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims.”

Russia apparently reached a diplomatic triumph at the last minute, postponing the U.S. military attack scheduled for this week. Yielding right now, however, would mean delaying America’s principal objective, which is to construct a Middle East that would be an unconditional ally in the fight against Iran and then against China. Furthermore, Obama’s most aggressive advisers (the “hawks”) are conscious that the window of opportunity may be closing for the U.S. to achieve its intended goal for the “New American Century” project. However, the country’s most moderate advisers (the “doves”) insist that U.S. objectives (to not lose global hegemony) could be attained without invading Syria. This division, which is similar to the one produced during the Bush administration a decade ago, seems shaken by the appearance of the so-called extreme-rightist fundamentalists (the tea party members) who oppose Obama’s war policy. This sector argues that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama does not have the capacity to lead the U.S. into war and should refrain from committing the U.S. to military adventures in the Middle East. According to Hans von Sponeck, former assistant secretary of the U.N., “We have no proof that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.” Even if, he adds, the U.S. provides evidence, “We have to remain skeptical, remembering the Tonkin Gulf incident and the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the Racak massacre and the Kosovo War, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the second Gulf War, the threat of massacre in Benghazi and the Libyan War. All these justifications for previous wars were fabricated or dubious.”