President Theodore Roosevelt zei een eeuw geleden: ‘Ons voornaamste nut voor de mensheid berust op het combineren van kracht met high purpose.’ Na de val van de Muur in 1989 werd dit hogere doel aangepast. Het Westen had gezegevierd. Nu wilden de Amerikanen het uitbreiden: de rest van de wereld zou ook westerse waarden overnemen en democratisch worden. Europa dreef uit de Amerikaanse focus. Dat speet veel Europeanen niet. Ze deelden die universele missiedrang niet en verafschuwden de methodes die de Amerikanen in Irak of Afghanistan gebruikten.
Deze mondiale ‘beschavingsmissie’ liep stuk op China, Rusland, islamitische staat en oorlogen als in Syrië.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/10/30/laatste-kans-voor-het-westen-a4018093
The early decades of the 20th century saw a number of interventions in Latin America by the U.S. government often justified under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
‘Big stick ideology, big stick diplomacy, or big stick policy refers to President Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy: ‘speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.’ Op 2 april 1903 introduceerde de Amerikaanse president deze leer. In Roosevelt’s visie betekende het dat ‘it was essential to possess serious military capability that would force the adversary to pay close attention. At the time that meant a world-class navy.’ Bovendien was van ultiem belang ‘never to bluff, to strike only when prepared to strike hard.’ Theodore Roosevelt voegde hieraan toe: ‘If the American Nation will speak softly, and yet build, and keep at a pitch of the highest training, a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.’
De Monroe Doctrine uit 1823 ging er vanuit ‘that any intervention in the politics of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the United States.’ Het doel was ‘that the U.S. could exert its influence undisturbed’ door Europese landen. Vanaf toen werd Zuid- en Midden-Amerika de achtertuin van de VS, waar de militairen van de politieke elite in Washington, en met name op Wall Street, konden doen en laten wat ze wilden om de belangen van de rijken te laten expanderen, ten koste van ontelbare doden en verminkten in deze wingewesten. Ondermeer de Monroe-Leer verklaart waarom de VS het zwaarst bewapende land in de geschiedenis van de mensheid is geworden, dat 93 procent van zijn bestaan in oorlog is geweest, en anno 2021 te kennen geeft bereid te zijn ‘to go to war against Russia over Ukraine.’ Onder deze kop vatte de Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Rick Rozoff de huidige stand van zaken als volgt samen:
Recent press releases from the White House, the Defense Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization uniformly communicate the message that the U.S. and NATO are willing, and perhaps are preparing, to enter into armed conflict with Russia over their joint client regime in Ukraine.
On April 1 U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Defense Minister Andrii Taran, in which he ‘reaffirmed unwavering U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.’ The last expression means joining NATO, first, and the European Union, second (as has occurred with all thirteen NATO members inducted since 1999 that also joined the EU.) In the words of the Pentagon’s readout of the conversation, Austin also ‘condemned recent escalations of Russian aggressive and provocative actions in eastern Ukraine…’ The defense chief also ‘reiterated the U.S. commitment to building the capacity of Ukraine’s forces to defend more effectively against Russian aggression.’
Austin recalled that the U.S. has provided Ukraine with over $2 billion in military and security assistance since the American-engineered violent uprising in the nation seven years ago that resulted in the ouster of the legally-elected and internationally-recognized government of Viktor Yanukovych and war in the Donbas region. Austin also confirmed a recent $125 million package from the Pentagon to ‘enhance the lethality, command and control, and situational awareness of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.’
When the head of the mightiest military organization in the world, one which outspends Russia on defense more than ten times, speaks of a key political and military client regime — and one in a nation moreover that has enriched the family of the current U.S. president — as the victim of military aggression, the inevitable corollaries of his pronouncement are not hard to divine (voorspellen. svh).
The following day President Joe Biden (or so it was reported) spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and ‘affirmed the United States’ unwavering (onwankelbaar. svh) support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea.’ Biden reportedly spoke of intensifying the strategic partnership between the two states and spoke of reforms — to repeat, Biden spoke of reforms in Ukraine — that are ‘central to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.’ That is, to becoming a full member of NATO.
The same day Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called for an ‘urgent American involvement in the de-occupation of (Donbas) and Crimea’ in a newspaper interview.
On April 1 (2021. svh) NATO itself joined the chorus of Western denunciations of Russia, with an alliance official stating, ‘Russia’s destabilizing actions undermine efforts to de-escalate tensions,’ in the Donbas, adding, ‘Allies shared their concerns about Russia’s recent large scale military activities in and around Ukraine.’ The ‘in Ukraine’ reference was no doubt concerning Crimea, and the ‘around Ukraine’ one relating to Russian troop movements within Russia itself. Given the fact that the Ukrainian government has been waging war for seven years in Donetsk and Lugansk, which border Russia, and that Russian citizens have been killed and wounded by Ukrainian shelling across the border into Russia, would seem to justify Russian troop movements given the recent escalation of hostilities in the region.
U.S. European Command (EUCOM) has raised its alert status to the highest level. EUCOM is one of six geographical unified (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Coast Guard) combatant commands the Pentagon employs to divide up the surface of the world. It shares its top commander with NATO.
In a recent Ukrainian television interview the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, Ruslan Khomchak, affirmed that the nation’s armed forces are fully operational for a possible war, able to ‘protect the territorial integrity and independence of our state.’
That’s true of any army, of course, but Khomchak was more specific: ‘To accomplish this task, we must be ready to act both offensively and defensively and to carry out maneuvers. Of course we are preparing for the offensive… We have experience in warfare in eastern Ukraine.’ Seven years of it in fact.
On February 8, President Zelensky approved a plan to admit foreign troops into Ukraine in 2021 to take part in several multinational military exercises led by the U.S. and other NATO nations, including the U.S.-led exercises Rapid Trident 2021 and Sea Breeze 2021, the British-Ukrainian Cossack Mace 2021 and Warrior Watcher 2021 exercises, the Romanian-Ukrainian Riverine 2021 exercise, and the Polish-Ukrainian Three Swords 2021 and Silver Sabre 2021 war games.
He also recently approved Ukraine’s new military strategy, which not surprisingly emphasizes the subjugation of Donetsk and Lugansk and even Crimea. All-out assaults against the first two would probably provoke a war with Russia; an attack on the third would make it inevitable.
NATO is mentioned 19 times in the document, which speaks of an impending war with Donetsk and Lugansk, and by inference with Russia, in which Ukraine would be provided ‘the help of the international community on terms favorable to Ukraine.’
More pointedly it mentions depending on ‘the political, economic and military support of Ukraine by the international community in its geopolitical confrontation with the Russian Federation.’ The new military strategy also speaks of Ukraine becoming involved in a war between NATO and Russia in which Ukraine ‘will be drawn into an international armed conflict, especially between nuclear-armed states.’
The Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine advocated by Biden and Austin would make Ukraine’s participation in a war between the world’s two major nuclear powers inevitable. It might also make Ukraine the main battleground in such a war.
Al deze informatie is van vitaal belang om de achtergrond te beseffen van Caroline de Gruyter’s niet aflatende anti-Russische propaganda. Zodra de eerste oorlogshandelingen plaatsvinden, is het eenvoudig te traceren welke opiniemakers van de polderpers mede-verantwoordelijk zijn geweest voor de onvermijdelijke oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. De Amerikaanse auteur Henry Adams, wiens grootvader en overgrootvader president van de Verenigde Staten waren, en die van binnenuit wist hoe de zaken werkelijk geregeld worden, constateerde niet voor niets in het begin van de twintigste eeuw: ‘The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell lies where the interests are concerned.’ Pas na de woorden volgt het moorden.
Om de context van het heden te begrijpen dient de lezer tevens te weten dat Caroline de Gruyter’s citaat van Theodore Roosevelt dat ‘Ons voornaamste nut voor de mensheid berust op het combineren van kracht met high purpose,’ misleidend is, zonder de volgende vermelding van de gezaghebbende Amerikaanse historica Patricia O’Toole, ‘who taught at Columbia University. She is a Society of American Historians fellow and was a visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study.’ In haar boek When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt after the White House (2005) toont zij aan dat ‘The power (kracht. svh) Roosevelt had in mind was of the canon-and-battleship variety… Blind to his longing for power, he would repeatedly deceive himself about the loftiness of his purpose.’ Bovendien was Theodore Roosevelt in ‘international affairs’ een ‘strong believer in the superiority and civilizing mission of the Anglo-Saxons in general and the United States in particular’ en ‘in the use of force.’ Vijf jaar voordat hij in 1901 president werd:
Roosevelt had complained about President Cleveland’s failure to annex Hawaii because it meant the islands would be settled not by ‘white Americans, but of low caste laborers from the yellow races.’
Algemeen bekend is dat Theodore Roosevelt een uitgesproken racist was, maar dit feit verzwijgt Caroline de Gruyter, omdat het niet past in haar pro-Amerika-propaganda, waarbij zij ondermeer zijn citaat misbruikt dat ‘Ons voornaamste nut voor de mensheid berust op het combineren van kracht met high purpose,’ zonder erbij te vermelden wat dit concreet betekende. Zij beweert zelfs dat ‘Na de val van de Muur in 1989 dit hogere doel [werd] aangepast. Het Westen had gezegevierd. Nu wilden de Amerikanen het uitbreiden: de rest van de wereld zou ook westerse waarden overnemen en democratisch worden.’ Ten tijde van het presidentschap van Teddy Roosevelt, aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw vroeg Mark Twain, naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse bloedbaden op de Filippijnen die vele honderdduizenden doden veroorzaakte, in zijn ‘anti-imperialistische’ essays zich spottend af of ‘het zo zou kunnen zijn dat er twee soort beschavingen bestaan — één voor binnenlandse consumptie en één voor de heidense markt?’ Twain zette in To the Person Sitting in Darkness (1901) uiteen dat:
‘Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey (admiraal van de Amerikaanse marine. svh) destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan — the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army — ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured — a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by — by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause — just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence — and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised — that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public — in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly — so affectionate, even — with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington — Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against “the common enemy” (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them — officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government — fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground — a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain's case over again — at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself.’
‘We and the patriots having captured Manila, Spain's ownership of the Archipelago and her sovereignty over it were at an end — obliterated — annihilated — not a rag or shred of either remaining behind. It was then that we conceived the divinely humorous idea of buying both of these spectres from Spain! [It is quite safe to confess this to the Person Sitting in Darkness, since neither he nor any other sane person will believe it.] In buying those ghosts for twenty millions, we also contracted to take care of the friars and their accumulations. I think we also agreed to propagate leprosy and smallpox, but as to this there is doubt. But it is not important; persons afflicted with the friars do not mind the other diseases.
With our Treaty ratified, Manila subdued, and our Ghosts secured, we had no further use for Aguinaldo and the owners of the Archipelago. We forced a war, and we have been hunting America's guest and ally through the woods and swamps ever since.’
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sitting.html
Deze Amerikaanse koloniale oorlog was inmiddels onderdeel van het overzeese expansionisme van de VS, in wat Twain sarcastisch ‘the interest of Progress and Civilization’ noemde, oftewel in de woorden van Caroline de Gruyter, 119 jaar later, een 'beschavingsmissie' zodat de hedendaagse Persons Sitting in Darkness de ‘westerse waarden overnemen en democratisch worden,’ met opnieuw het grootst mogelijke geweld, zoals we in deze eeuw hebben gezien in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië, Syrië. Twain schreef over de Filipino’s ‘Of course, they were surprised — that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved,’ maar zij, waren, evenals Mark Twain, door ervaring wijs geworden. In The New York Herald van 15 oktober 1900 liet hij weten dat:
I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone to conquer, not to redeem… And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the [American] eagle put its talons (klauwen. svh) on any other land.
Dit alles in tegenstelling tot de NRC-opiniemaakster Caroline de Gruyter, die dermate journalistiek corrupt is dat zij niet van de geschiedenis kan leren.
Caroline de Gruyter. Journalistiek Corrupt.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten