While it is true that global economy, finance and trade are interconnected, it is not true that "international order" will help to bring prosperity to the masses. In fact, it will only serve to limit production, increase tax burdens and create a new caste system in which personal freedom and liberty will give way to abuse, corruption and tyranny. The words used in this National Security Strategy of good intentions may be eloquently written, and posting this document to Whitehouse.gov may be an effort at transparency, but the only thing transparent about this administration's strategy are the lies that can be seen through its prism.
An excerpt from the text reads "Engagement is the active participation of the United States in relationships beyond our borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes. Indeed, America has never succeeded through isolationism. As the nation that helped to build our international system after World War II and to bring about the globalization that came with the end of the Cold War, we must reengage the world on a comprehensive and sustained basis."
Interjection-
[Globalization is a controversial subject. Proponents believe that it helps poor countries to modernize in order to compete globally with industrialized nations through employment and technology. Critics believe it undermines national sovereignty by outsourcing industry overseas where labor is cheaper (or done by slaves, sweatshop workers, or children).]
Another excerpt reads "Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms."
There is that concept again "international norms". Is that a reference to laws? What else would there be to enforce? Hmm.... curious. Go on....
"Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict and pandemic disease."
Well, at least the text affirms that there are shortcomings in the international system, but the important phrase to note is italicized in bold. To strenghthen international institutions would be to give greater power and authority to the United Nations and NATO (further undermining national sovereignty). To galvanize collective action is akin to "central planning", a tenet of Collectivism (which to the uninformed is a political system upon which socialism, communism, and fascism are based). This is fun... I feel like I'm learning something. Let's go on....
"The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East - ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence - including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia - so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, in no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions."
I have to disagree with the above italicized statment in bold. To engage in this collective action for international order, power would become confined to a zero sum game. America has long been the brightest beacon of individual freedom and liberty in world history. We have also been uniquely positioned as the mightiest nation on Earth. We have used our power in the world to overthrow oppressive despots, tyrants and sycophants, rescue Europe in its darkest hour, and cause the collapse of a communist giant (U.S.S.R.). It would be foolish for the United States to cede that power to anyone. An international order would allot zero power to any one nation, in effect making it near impossible to get anything accomplished. This brings us to the concept of Collectivism.
Collectivism can only work with "central planning", meaning that a central body dictates what is produced and how it is equitably distributed. But it breaks down in that it presupposes that a single plan of action will work for everyone. I'm sure you've heard the idiom "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". But under collectivism, the only asshole farting will be that of the central governing body. Tasteless joke, I know, but so is Socialism. A single plan of action doesn't take any individual concerns into account. Which means that if the gov is set up as christian, then all other religions will not be tolerated. If you are gay in a straight nation, you're screwed. If you're ethnicity differs from that of the "norm", then you will be removed or eliminated. Okay.... let's move on...
"This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice - and greater responsibilities - for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."
The text seems to suggest that we should modernize third world countries to ensure they produce for the benefit of the global interest. That's interesting... that sounds just like the downside to globalization that I was talking about earlier. Weird.
"Constructive national steps on issues ranging from nuclear security to climate change must be incentivized, so nations that choose to do their part see the benefits of responsible action. Rules of the road must be followed, and there must be consequences for those nations that break the rules - whether they are nonproliferation obligations, trade agreements, or human rights commitments."
This just keeps getting better. Incentivized... I like it. We create incentives for them to do the right thing. Obviously they won't do the right thing without incentive to do so. How do we create those incentives? Well, we impose sanctions, cut off trade, threaten military action. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like coercion. Like a shakedown or other mafia tactics. What else is interesting about the last paragraph? In the italicized bold above we see that there will be consequences for those nations who do not abide by the rules of (radicals) the road. Wasn't it mentioned earlier though about China and the Middle East? Aren't those some of the worst human rights offenders around? It seems the muck just gets thicker as you go along.
More to come later..... I've got a lot of research to do in order to do this right, so check back often. Thanks for reading.
BRAVO!! Excellent analysis of the bullshit piece of crap Obama has put out.
ReplyDeletePlease continue your analysis, as the 'sh**' continues throughout the entire 60 pages.
Look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.