OBAMA Y ROMY NI SOÑADORES NI REALISTAS

OBAMA Y ROMY NI SOÑADORES NI REALISTAS
Hugo Adan, Dic 14, 2011
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/

La contienda electoral entre Obama y Mit Romy expresan la debacle político-electoral del imperio. Romy sugirió que votar por Obama significa perder la guerra contra Iran y Syria ya planeada (si se permite que Iran construya su bomba nuclear) y eso significaria perder la futura guerra contra China y Rusia, los supuestos peores enemigos de America. No lo dijo asi, pero es lo que está detrás del mensaje de Romy. Obama en recientes declaraciones en Australia y Burma indico que su administración es quien mejor defiende los intereses del imperio en el pacifico y que esta dispuesto a destruir el avance Chino-Ruso en esta zona por via militar (es lo que Petras refiere en su artículo de abajo, y asumo que Petras sin quererlo le hace juego al chovinismo militarista que expresan ambos, Romi y Obama).

La estrategia electoral de ambos partidos parece haber sido diseñada por los duenios del poder en los EU (los Think Tank del military-Zionist-financial-complex) al que no solo Obama y los democratas están subordinados sino también Romy y los altos mandos republicanos. La guerra con Iran esta en camino y es evidente en el sabotaje económico contra Iran-Syria, lo que Chinos y Rusos están bloqueando. Esto no significa que el electorado americano quiera más guerras abroad ni tampoco que estén dispuesto a ir al ánfora. Hay total apatía al respecto y se espera un alto ausentismo electoral el 2012.

La guerra con Iran podría postergar las elecciones (en lo que ambos partidos estarían de acuerdo pues con ninguno hay option clara de victoria y menos de gobernabilidad interna) y lo que es peor aún, esta seria la guerra semi-nuclear entre ambos bloques que no pasaría de una semana. Asumo acabaría en un “empate” y esto a quien más beneficiaria seria a los republicanos guerreristas, quienes ya acusan de Obama de no dar garantías de victoria absoluta contra el bloque Chino-Ruso. Por ello el mensaje de Romy.

La estrategia electoral de Romy y Obama expresa el desconcierto existente entre los dueños del poder. Esto poco o nada no tiene que ver con sueños ni realidad particular ni de Obama ni Romy (los demás no cuentan). Lo que hay es pura farsa militarista (war monguerism) y dudo que los financistas de EU y Europa estén muy convencidos de que esta guerra los va a beneficiar. Mas bien creo que los va a dividir y esto va a partir en pedazos a NATO y quizá mas tarde a los mismos EU. Se imaginan Uds a EU sin China o Europa sin Rusia?

A esto me refiero cuando hablo de la actual debacle electoral y muy posible (si el pueblo afirma e institucionaliza su convicción de no votar por ninguno de los dos partidos con una alternativa de frente único) podría ocurrir la final destrucción de la trampa electoral actual y de la dictadura de las grandes corporaciones dueñas de ambos partidos.

===================


BETWEEN REALISM AND DELUSION: OBAMA’S STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT
From: Obama Raises the Military Stakes: Confrontation on the Borders with China and Russia. Global Research, December 10, 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28144
by Prof. James Petras

[[EXTRACTS]]

Obama’s recognition that the present and future center of political and economic power is moving inexorably to Asia , was a flash of political realism. After a lost decade of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in military adventures on the margins and periphery of world politics, Washington has finally discovered that is not where the fate of nations, especially Great Powers, will be decided, except in a negative sense – of bleeding resources over lost causes. Obama’s new realism and priorities apparently are now focused on Southeast and Northeast Asia, where dynamic economies flourish, markets are growing at a double digit rate, investors are ploughing tens of billions in productive activity and trade is expanding at three times the rate of the US and the EU.

But Obama’s ‘New Realism’ is blighted by entirely delusional assumptions, which undermine any serious effort to realign US policy.

In the first place Obama’s effort to ‘enter’ into Asia is via a military build-up and not through a sharpening and upgrading of US economic competitiveness. What does the US produce for the Asian countries that will enhance its market share? Apart from arms, airplanes and agriculture, the US has few competitive industries. The US would have to comprehensively re-orient its economy, upgrade skilled labor, and transfer billions from “security” and militarism to applied innovations. But Obama works within the current military-Zionist-financial complex: He knows no other and is incapable of breaking with it.

Secondly, Obama-Clinton operate under the delusion that the US can exclude China or minimize its role in Asia, a policy that is undercut by the huge and growing investment and presence of all the major US multi-national corporations in China , who use it as an export platform to Asia and the rest of the world.

The US military build-up and policy of intimidation will only force China to downgrade its role as creditor financing the US debt, a policy China can pursue because the US market, while still important, is declining, as China expands its presence in its domestic, Asian, Latin American and European markets.

What once appeared to be New Realism is now revealed to be the recycling of Old Delusions: The notion that the US can return to being the supreme Pacific Power it was after World War Two. The US attempts to return to Pacific dominance under Obama-Clinton with a crippled economy, with the overhang of an over-militarized economy, and with major strategic handicaps: Over the past decade the United States foreign policy has been at the beck and call of Israel ’s fifth column (the Israel “lobby”). The entire US political class is devoid of common, practical sense and national purpose. They are immersed in troglodyte debates over “indefinite detentions” and “mass immigrant expulsions”. Worse, all are on the payrolls of private corporations who sell in the US and invest in China .

Why would Obama abjure costly wars in the unprofitable periphery and then promote the same military metaphysics at the dynamic center of the world economic universe? Does Barack Obama and his advisers believe he is the Second Coming of Admiral Commodore Perry, whose 19th century warships and blockades forced Asia open to Western trade? Does he believe that military alliances will be the first stage to a subsequent period of privileged economic entry?

Does Obama believe that his regime can blockade China , as Washington did to Japan in the lead up to World War Two? It’s too late. China is much more central to the world economy, too vital even to the financing of the US debt, too bonded up with the Forbes Five Hundred multi-national corporations. To provoke China , to even fantasize about economic “exclusion” to bring down China , is to pursue policies that will totally disrupt the world economy, first and foremost the US economy!

CONCLUSION

Obama’s ‘crackpot realism’, his shift from wars in the Muslim world to military confrontation in Asia , has no intrinsic worth and poses extraordinary extrinsic costs. The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US , as it is currently constituted. Washington ’s policies will not ‘weaken’ Russia or China , even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama’s sequential wars on behalf of Israel . Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya . China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and “exclusive” alliances. Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe .

In other words, Obama’s military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance. Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon’s “divide and conquer” strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms. Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run. China ’s Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US .

Obama’s “crackpot realism”, views the world market through military lenses. Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan , its most compliant client regime in South Asia . NATO deliberately slaughtered 24 Pakistani soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistani generals, while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.

In the end, the military and exclusionary posture to China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business-oriented erstwhile Asian partners, who only want to play-off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage. They certainly do not want a new US instigated ‘Cold War’ dividing and weakening the dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment. Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia ’s current leaders do not have permanent allies - only permanent interests. In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a ‘permanent Pacific presence’ but until it demonstrates it can take care of its “basic business at home”, like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its naval facilities to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods for them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contrabandists and narco-traffickers.


Come to think about it, Obama might reduce the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.