Home > Checkmate: The End of US Hegemony and What it Means for the People of the (...)

Checkmate: The End of US Hegemony and What it Means for the People of the United States

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 15 March 2006
1 comment

Trade-Exchange Rates Governments USA

By Brandon Batzloff
Editor, Free Voices
freevoices@lycos.com

In October 2004, i wrote an essay titled “US and Russia: Democracy in Check” in which i compared the methods that both the United States and Russia were using to curtail human rights and democratic process. Since that time both countries have taken great steps in this direction, but the US has definitely taken the lead. Under the banner of providing security and an expanded economy, the Bush regime has taken unprecedented powers and restricted the lives of US citizens in ways that would have been unthinkable even ten years ago. In the end they have provided neither security nor economic advancement. The results have been quite the contrary; US supremacy is being dismantled in the manner that was once applied to the governments and economies of developing nations.

Most people are overwhelmed by the amount of information relating to this subject. Because there is so much to know, it becomes difficult to understand what is happening and how dangerous it is. For this reason, it is best to divide news and events into two categories: first, internal effects on citizens and others living in the United States, and second, the US in international relations. From these two bodies conclusions can be drawn as to the motivations of US leaders and the outcomes of their actions.

Living in a Police State

Like many leaders in history, George Bush, jr. used an external threat to remove the rights of the individual and to begin an escalating series of repressive measures. Shortly after the events of 11 September 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act was rushed through Congress. When it became known that Congress had passed a law that took steps toward nullifying parts of the Constitution, we were told that these measures would only be temporary. The USA PATRIOT Act is now permanent.

The details of this law or the hundreds of laws that it affects were just the opening justification for the removal of civil rights and the shredding of the Constitution. Since that time the crimes of the Executive in its failure to uphold the sworn duty of protecting the Constitution have been so numerous that they would be difficult to count. A great deal of media attention has been drawn to the illegal National Security Agency (NSA) wiretaps that Bush ordered. To many people this was a startling revelation, but it was really not so surprising when taking into consideration the sheer number of US citizens who have had problems with being watched.

With all of the attention that was brought to this subject, the President of the United States committing one of the most serious crimes, you would have thought something would be done. Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin) introduced a measure to censure George Bush, jr. and begin the formal process of impeachment for violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Democrats are not comfortable with discussing censure because the Senate investigation into the wiretaps has not been completed. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated that the investigation would “assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken” (Kellman). This is a crime that Bush first admitted to on 17 December 2005 and on numerous occasions since then (Dean). Why do Democrats not feel that his admission to committing the crime is sufficient evidence of having committed it?

The justification of these wiretaps is that they would only be administered on international communications with known terrorists. This justification has little merit considering that the USA PATRIOT Act and Executive Order 13224 redefine the definition of terrorism as anyone attempting to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation.” In practice, intimidation has come to mean any activity that seeks to promote change, such as protest, education, journalistic writing, and so on.

In recent months, the paranoia of the state has reached a fever pitch with reports of intimidation and arrest by police, FBI, Homeland Security, and an assortment of other authorities of politically aware people. Laura Berg, a Veterans Association (VA) nurse in Albuquerque, New Mexico is being accused of sedition for writing a letter to her local newspaper (VA Nurse). On 2 March, six members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for their participation in developing a website that campaigned for the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences animal testing labs (Animal Rights). Several other arrests of anarchists have taken place for alleged “eco-terrorist” actions.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that between 2 March and 10 March, the Department of Homeland Security arrested 375 gang members as part of a year long program in which 2,388 people across the US were arrested. This might sound like normal crime prevention, but is far from it. In reference to these arrests Julie Meyers, Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, a division of the Department of Homeland Security) stated, “Transnational street gangs pose a growing public safety threat to urban and rural communities throughout the United States. Their violence, sophistication, and scope have reached intolerable levels” (ICE Arrests).

The words “transnational” and “sophistication” are critical here. They are taken directly from the RAND Corporation’s report Networks and Netwars: The Future of Crime, Terror, and Militancy. On page 102 in Chapter 4: Gangs, Hooligans, and Anarchists-The Vanguard of Netwar in the Streets, we find that members of gangs (whose definition includes organized anarchists and others pushing for political change) are classified as terrorists based on the three criteria of politicization, internationalization, and sophistication.

“Politicization refers to the scope of political activity embraced by the gang....At the high end, some gangs have active political agendas, using the political process to further their ends and destabilize governments.” This means that the more politically involved a group is in established systems, the more dangerous it is for those with power. Many street gangs have advanced to the point of sponsoring voting drives during elections. Anarchists and other political activists take part in demonstrations, write petitions, and contribute to lobbying efforts.

“Internationalization refers to the spatial or geographic reach of the gang....At the high end, some gangs are crossborder, transnational, or even international in scope with outposts in foreign cities.” Some street gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) exist on both sides of the US-Mexican border. This cross-border organization speaks more to the cultural and familial necessity of Chicano/a, Latino/a, and Mexicano/a people. The report also cites involvement with the Zapatistas of Mexico as a part of internationalist organization. It is important to remember that internationalization is also a concept of communist revolutionary movements of the last 100 years.

“Sophistication addresses the nature of gang tactics and strategies, the use of weapons and technology, and organizational complexity of the gang.” Naturally the more organized a group becomes, they begin to rely less on weapons and begin to rely more heavily on organization, as was witnessed when the physical militancy of the Black Panther Party de-escalated as they became more involved in developing schools, social and economic programs, and became involved with local and national politics. This suggests that the sophistication that is most dangerous is that of “organizational complexity.”

It is commonly known that street gangs come into existence when there is a lack of civic structure. When street gangs evolve to the point that they are able to assert themselves in a democratic fashion along with other groups of people such as animal rights and environmental activists, they become a threat to those who have profited from the oppression of the people belonging to the street gangs. It is at this point that democratic process must be ended and mass arrests such as those being conducted by Homeland Security take place.

Another concerning fact about these arrests is that only 533 have had formal charges brought against them while 1,855 have entered the deportation process (ICE Arrests). It is quite likely that a large number of those being deported are US citizens who may not have had identification with them at the time of their arrest or that the validity of their identification was denied. Arrest and deportation based on race and ethnicity is racist and a clear violation of the Fourteenth Ammendment. Deportation from the US is never a matter of being hauled across a border and dropped off. It involves months and years in detention facilities. Amnesty International has documented cases where immigrant children have spent their entire lives in detention facilities.

On 24 January, Kellog, Brown and Root (KBR) a subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded another contract to build detention camps for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (KBR Awarded). These camps are to be used for immigration emergencies, such as the deportation of thousands of people captured in mass arrests, or natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. As stated before, ICE detention facilities are long term with few if any human rights guarantees and no assurance of human rights standards by non-governmental organizations.

Mass arrests and deportation of people for political reasons is cause to be gravely concerned about the course the US has taken. The number of arrests taking place has increased dramatically over the past few months. Combining this with the deportation of unwanted political “criminals” reveals a trend that is going to continue to expand as the totalitarian motivations of the Bush regime become more evident.

War and Intimidation as International Relations

It is obvious to anyone who sees even a few seconds of the most propagandistic news broadcast that the US not only has very little support, but is considered the most dangerous country in the world. The continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking their toll. With all of this, the Bush regime is doing everything in their power to enter into a conflict with Iran. (For more information of the details surrounding the developing conflict, please see http://www.free-voices.org/stories/Stories.php?art=calculatingtherisk)

UN Security Council discussions about the Iranian nuclear energy program started on 13 March. However, any hope of a diplomatic solution has already passed. As the decision was made to send Iran to the Security Council where sanctions are to be proposed, Dick Cheney announced that Iran faced “meaningful consequences” and that the US was “keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime" (Kessler). Considering that Cheney made this statement after a discussion about sanctions was scheduled, we can only assume that other options would be military force. Further, Russia has announced that they do not support sanctions and will likely veto the motion. Russia is so heavily involved in Iran that it would be harmful to them to allow sanctions to take place. In addition to these factors, Bush has already requested funding for “pro-democracy efforts” in Iran as part of a military spending bill (Allen).

Iran has become the centerpiece in a game for control of Asia. For the past ten years the US has been chipping away at Russian control in Asia as a way of forcing them into submission and containing the growing economic prowess of China. In the past year Russia has been able to reassert control in the former Soviet Republics after the wave of pro-US color revolutions proved to be nothing more than another type of corruption. Russia has also positioned itself as a geopolitical player in the Middle East by recognizing the recent electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine. Maintaining strong connections with Iran will allow Russia to regrow its influence over Asia and block US control. The US, on the other hand, requires the resources in Iran to continue the expansion of empire. US control of Iran would almost immediately diminish Russian regional influence and bring China into reliance on US energy markets. Failure to acquire Iran will lead to the rapid decline of US market influence and eventually result in the containment of US influence to the North American continent. The stakes are very high. It is an all or nothing game for everyone involved, which is one of the reasons why the US is willing to use nuclear weapons in an initial attack.

Amid all of this excitement are reports that the Bush regime is selling off US national resources. The sale of six seaports to a Dubai owned company is simply the most sensational of these events. The most recent news is that Dubai Ports World has decided to abandon the deal. However, this was not specifically stated and an email obtained by the Associated Press shows that they still intend to acquire the Miami port (Bridis).

Controlling a nation’s seaports is, in effec, controlling the nation, as the economy is based largely on port traffic. In the 1970’s, the political involvement of the Black Panther Party had the ultimate goal of gaining control of the seaport in Oakland, California as a way of imposing revolutionary communist values on the US economy (Brown).

In addition to the ports, there is a plan to sell public lands, supposedly to fund rural schools. It is a bad day when a country sells its national resources. One of the key aspects of neoliberal globalization plans enacted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank is that countries receiving benefits and loans are required to pay these loans by selling off national resources and infrastructure. This is supposed to better the economy, but has never had that effect. In every instance it has drained the wealth from the country in which these measure were taken.

It is very strange that Bush and his men would subject the US economy to measures which have proven to bankrupt an economy. It is especially strange since this independence of US ownership is the basis of Republican conservativism and Democratic neoliberalism. It is also no secret that the Bush family acquired their wealth through criminal dealings. From trading with the Nazis during World War II to fraudulent property deals, from trafficking drugs and weapons (Iran-Contra) to the Savings and Loan Scandal, the Bush family has always been, above all else, about profiting from the losses of the American people. If George Bush, jr. is now selling the national resources and infrastructure of the United States, it can only mean that his family and their business partners are extracting the last bits of profitable capital from the country. In other words, the US is now in the same position that many of the worlds impoverished developing nations have been.

If this is the case, it would seem to suggest that fighting a war in Iran would be pointless. Pointless, that is, if the goal of starting this war is actually to secure US hegemony and empire. It would make perfect sense if the war were intended to remove the US as the basis for market power and ensure corporate interests in another country, perhaps a country with a rapidly growing economy like China’s. Of course none of us can ever really predict what will happen. We will have to wait for the power brokers to move their pieces to be certain of how the game will end.

Where do we stand?

Recently retired Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, gave a speech in which she discussed the neo-conservative attacks on the judiciary and how dangerous they are. She went as far as to recall that many other countries that attempt such hard line reforms fall into dictatorship (Totenberg). Seeing the US today as a dictatorship might not seem a terribly accurate (although many would argue this point) portrayal, but it hard to miss the fact that the country is sinking into a totalitarian mire.

The repression and paranoia that are spreading through the US are very dangerous factors. It seems as if everyone is hoping that the madness will end. Perhaps this is why the Democrats in Congress are afraid to discuss censuring Bush? They might be afraid of the reaction against them if they carry forward with such a motion while holding a glimmer of hope that things will change in 2008. Most of the country seems to be caught in this line of thinking. Everyone is seeing what could become the worse and is hoping that an election might be the way out.

This is possible, but doubtful. A war in Iran will hurt the US more than can possibly be gained. In The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski lists the abolition of democracy in the US as an imperative for US hegemony over Asia. Considering the current condition of the military and that this hegemony is the goal of an invasion of Iran, it would make sense that this imperative be met before the invasion commences. The Bush regime has previously violated the suggestions that Brzezinski made, so it is possible that this will not take place.

Given the sales of national resources, it would make sense that Bush has nearly achieved the goals he was put in place to achieve. Amid growing calls for his removal, it would be much easier for him to resign and hand the reigns of power to Cheney. If anyone can rule with an iron fist, it is Dick Cheney.

There are many factors that point toward totalitarian development: increasing political repression in the US, the building of prison camps, deportation of unwanted peoples, unchecked reformation of government (such as the judiciary), an external threat through expanded war, decreased economic influence on the global market, and decreased economic viability because of the sale of national resources and infrastructure. Every country in modern history that has faced a combination of these challenges has collapsed into totalitarianism. It is extremely likely that we are witnessing the last days of US hegemony. As this comes to pass, the players will keep on playing and it will be we the Peoples of the United States who find ourselves checkmated.

Copyright © 2006 by Brandon Batzloff

References

Allen, Vicki. “House panel clears emergency war funds.” Reuters. 9 March 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060309/ts_nm/iraq_spending_dc_2

“Animal rights group guilty of inciting terror.” CNN. 2 March 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/02/animal.rights.ap/

Bridis, Ted. “E-Mail Casts Doubt on DP World’s Plans.” Ap. 14 March 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ports_security

Brown, Elaine. A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1992.

Dean, John. “George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress’ Laws to Protect National Security.” Find Law. 30 Dec 2005. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

“KBR AWARDED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTINGENCY SUPPORT PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES.” Halliburton Press Release. 24 January 2006. http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news.jsp?ne
wsurl=/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_0124
06.html

Kellman, Laurie. “Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure.” AP. 14 March 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_go_co/feingold_censure

Kessler, Glenn. “U.S., Russia Cooperate on Iran Amid Rifts.” The Washington Post. 8 March 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700670.html

“ICE Arrests 375 Gang Members and Associates in Two-Week Enforcement Action.” Department of Homeland Security Press Release. 10 March 2006. http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0878.xml

Networks and Netwars: The Future of Crime, Terror, and Militancy. RAND Corporation. September 2001. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/

Totenberg, Nina. “O’Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts.“ NPR. 10 March 2006. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

V.A. Nurse Accused of Sedition After Publishing Letter Critical of Bush on Katrina, Iraq.” Democracy Now. 2 March 2006. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/02/148237&mode=thread&tid=25

Forum posts

  • Well written and persuasive. I have been thinking these same thoughts for a while now, so your essay merely served to reinforce my own beliefs. Unfortunately, I believe it’s too late for the U.S. to change course. It’s going to have to go through totalitarianism and then collapse before it can even hope to recover. It’s so ironic that the United States today bears such a striking resemblence to the erstwhile totalitarian nations of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, while today Germany, Russia, and China serve as counterbalancing forces to U.S. hegemony! The countries have, in a sense, traded places!