Who's OnlineWe have 15 guests online
|Unilateral Dominance of the U.S. over the International Situation||| Print ||
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
Unilateral Dominance of the U.S. over the International Situation
Answer to a questionOne of the most important fundamental basics of explaining the current political events in the wake of the unilateral dominance of the U.S. over the international situation is reflected in the fact that the U.S. endeavours to establish and promote the world peace through the regional situations, regimes and the international relations in a manner that would enable her to establish hegemony over the world. This is so because her unilateral dominance over the international situation denotes the management of international issues or crises and her leadership in settling disputes. As for the various regions, America relies on the established unions to help her resolve the situation in those particular regions for instance she established (group of Sahil and the Sahara countries) via her agent Ghaddafi and also the group of east African states via her agent Mubarak and the group of Asian and pacific ocean economic corporation .she also worked towards reviving the Arab Maghrib union for her own aims. As for the regimes
America endeavours to establish a host of nominal democratic regimes and curb the dictatorial regimes by reducing the role of the military institutions within those regimes with the aim of lending a constitutional legitimacy to the rulers of those countries who are her agents in order to lengthen their terms in office, such as Algeria and Turkey. On the other hand she endeavours to assume a leading role in the intellectual aspects worldwide beside the political leadership. It is worth mentioning in this context that the United States outweighs her foreign policy between keeping one of her agents in power and strengthening a regime loyal to her in power. Therefore if it were in her interest to remove one of her agents or change him for the sake of maintaining one whole regime, she would do so and indeed she did remove Noriega from Panama and Marcos of the Phillipines. She also alienated Suharto and Zarwal in Indonesia and Algeria and she also sacrificed Ocalan in Turkey. Therefore the pragmatic policy of the U.S. doesn’t recognise any loyalty towards her agents. The loyalty is only confined to her interests, and this is what the collaborating rulers do not perceive.
When she becomes hostile towards a regime in order to strengthen its position domestically she would at the same time fructify the local regional and international political atmosphere in order to get rid of either the regime or the ruler whenever her interests necessitates such a manoeuvre. It is likely that she will get rid of Saddam and Milosovitch especially now that she aims at establishing nominal democratic regimes.
As for the international relations the U.S. endeavours to redefine the means of executing international policies-such as the curbing of the security councils role and activating or promoting the role of the U.N. Secretary general and by giving a new role to Nato to play a world policeman-through establishing a host of new political concepts which will help her to secure her interests and establishment of her hegemony such as her defence of ethnic minorities. Namely her intervention to protect the Kurds of Iraq and the Albanians of Kosova and such as the protection of democracy namely her intervention in Panama and the operation of restore hope in Somalia.
The Media Forum of Hizb ut-Tahrir
24 Rabi Al-Awwal 1420