The superpower acts out

The decision by the US president to recognise Jerusalem as capital of Israel and to shift the US embassy there has effectively forestalled the two-state solution that the international community had been working on to settle the Palestine-Israeli dispute. The step invoked a spontaneous reaction all over the world, particularly among Muslim countries.

Though the US vetoed the UNSC resolution seeking rejection of the US indiscretion by using its veto power, the resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the UN General Assembly – notwithstanding the threats hurled by the US. The UNGA adopted the – with 128 countries supporting it, 35 abstaining from voting and nine casting their votes against it.

The US reaction to this has amply reflected the bullying streak that the only superpower has been suffering from, more so under President Trump. The US treated the world body with the harshest criticism besides indicating the possibility of retaliatory actions against the states that ‘insulted’ the US by voting in favour of the resolution. The first manifestation of the consequences of the bruised ego of the superpower has not taken long to appear. The US has applied a cut of $285 in its contribution to the UN, something US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley described as ‘a big step in the right direction’. She said that the inefficiency and overspending of the UN were well known and the US would no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked.

How the US deals with the countries which voted in favour of the resolution is yet not clear but going by the past record of this international bully, which has been employing coercion as a means to achieve its strategic interests supported by its traditional Western allies, it is not hard to conclude that it will not be able to resists its impulsive propensity to take revenge where ever possible.

The US move against the UN, a body created by the US and the other triumphant nations of the World War II, whom they have been using to promote their imperialism, is very surprising.

History presents irrefutable evidence that great powers have invariably shown an irresistible propensity to subjugate small nations, intervene in their internal affairs on different pretexts, impose their cultures on them and even make attempts to create a world order conforming to their cultural values and political ambitions, a phenomenon known as imperialism.

The recent examples of imperialism through the UN are the actions taken against the Qaddafi regime by the US and its allies. The UN resolution for intervention in Libya never authorised military action but the US and its allies, who had been looking for an opportunity to settle score with Qaddafi, exceeded the UN mandate by resorting to airstrikes against targets inside Libya and extending military support to anti-Qaddafi forces on the ground.

At the start of the Libyan campaign, President Obama had emphatically stated that the action was not aimed at regime change in Libya but to protect the population from being persecuted by Qaddafi. The most perturbing aspect of these ostensibly humanitarian interventions has been that they have resulted in more human casualties and bloodshed than they were meant to save and protect. And, regrettably, they have been selectively used by the ‘Assault Gang’ comprising USA, Britain, France and Nato to achieve their non-humanitarian objectives. Their criminal apathy and indifference to the sufferings of the oppressed Palestinian, Kashmiri and other people around the globe tells the whole story.

The assault gang also used the UN to attack Iraq on the pretext of taking out ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – which were never found. Nevertheless, they succeeded in their real objective: to get Saddam Hussain and to seize control of the oil wealth of the country, remaining oblivious to the human lives that have been consumed by the conflict and the never-ending sectarian strife triggered by their blitzkrieg in Iraq. Do they care about that? Do they feel any grain of remorse for what they have done to that country? Certainly not.

The military action in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 – with a mandate from the UN – is yet another ranting manifestation of the imperialist mindset of the assault gang, considering the fact that some other options could have been tried to deal with terrorism. Their actions in Afghanistan and in the tribal belt of Pakistan have caused an exponential increase in terrorism instead of curbing it, the ostensible objective of their offensive in Afghanistan. This all has also badly affected Pakistan. The madness continues with incalculable loss of human lives and resources.

These imperialists refuse to recognise the demographic and historical ground realities in Afghanistan. It is, however, encouraging to note that the representative government in Pakistan and the military leadership have, of late, started resisting the arm-twisting tactics of US imperialists, and are exhibiting unswerving determination to regain the sovereignty that was surrendered by Musharraf. The firm stand taken by Pakistan against the new US policy on Afghanistan and South Asia, and the outright rejection of US allegations against us along with the greater role for India in the Afghan affairs are a ranting testimony to this fact.

The philosophy of making the world a better place through the use of military muscle and coercive measures, subscribed to and practised by American imperialists and their cronies, has certainly brought more misery to the human race and is likely to trigger off more conflicts and abuse of human rights. To make the world a better place, this new form of imperialism (in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’) will have to be checked in its tracks through the collective efforts of the world community, particularly developing countries.

These countries must strive for reforms in the UN structure and increase in the permanent members of the Security Council, giving equal representation to different geographical regions and abolishing the veto power altogether. All resolutions passed with a majority vote by the Security Council with regard to issues related to peace must be made binding for the concerned states. That can probably end the monopoly of powers like the US and its Western allies at the UN and their clout in securing support for their ulterior motives. The US and its allies would certainly resist any such move.

So what is the solution? The possible alternative in such a situation could be the establishment of more and more regional alliances to obviate the chances of small and developing countries becoming vulnerable to the machinations of the assault gang. The SCO is the best example of enhancing regional security, economic and political cooperation among its member countries. The Chinese initiative of One Belt One Road (OBOR), of which CPEC is the pivotal link, is also an ideal arrangement that aims at economic cooperation between the participating countries and establishing peace through increased economic inter-dependence.

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: ashpak10@gmail.com