Obama, Hillary, the hawks and a lot of difficult-to-answer questions...

                Throughout most of its history, the United States has based its foreign policy on expansionism (the “Westward Movement,” the 1998 Spanish-American war) or interventionism, cloak and dagger activities, preventive wars (the Big Stick in the Caribbean, military adventures in Mexico, Nicaragua, Granada, Dominican Republic, etc. ) and trade blockades such as the more than four decade throttling of trade with Cuba.               

               As it has gradually grabbed a growing portion of world power, Washington has to varying degrees applied an evangelical sounding branding of nations into “friends” or “enemies,” establishing categories such as  “outlaw” nations or—under the Bush Administration-- “axis of evil.”               

           Now, with presidential elections approaching, inability to produce a clear victory in its “preventive” war against Iraq, skyrocketing public deficit and about-to-burst stock market and housing bubbles, the political environment in the United States has discovered the word “change” and has begun to apply it to foreign as well as domestic policies.               

           In the primary elections for the Democratic party presidential nomination Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attempted to sell her supposed “experience” in foreign affairs—in part due to being the spouse of ex-president Bill Clinton—by assuming a hard line position with respect to issues such as the blockade against Cuba, the possibility of military retirement from Iraq and the advisability or not of talking to leaders of the so-called outlaw nations.                

             In contrast Barrack Obama has been lambasted in the press as “inexperienced” for asserting that if elected he would meet with leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria or Venezuela—the most outstanding “enemies” of the United States. In contrast, Clinton’s more establishment oriented stance aimed at conditioning talks to U.S. approved “reforms” has been described as “sophisticated.” That “sophistication” led her to back the Bush Administration’s 2002 Iraq war resolution, based on falsified and clearly manipulated information concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the oil rich country.               

            For example, during the administration of Hillary’s husband there were no meetings with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez nor with leaders of Iran, Syria or North Korea; yet there was a clear sides taking in the military and political intervention in the genocidal violence that followed the break up of the socialist regime in Yugoslavia; and the “outlaw” nations were subject to policies aimed at isolating them from the international community.                

           That represented an absolute bi-partisan continuum with respect to U.S. foreign policy.  And although the policies of President George Bush have been more extreme (and simplistic) there has been no basic alteration in the basic goals.  One result not a few commentators have pointed to: the Cuban Revolution has gained influence in Latin America, Chavez has become even more dynamic in his anti-Americanism and no end is in sight to the so-called war against terrorism.                

           Although Syria’s Bashar Assad was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon in 2006, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as his father was; Iran’s Ahmadinejad carries more weight in the Middle East than it did during the 1990’s…the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on and on with more and more death and destruction and no end in sight.            

           This brings to light a number of pertinent questions:

          1)      Why has the U.S. maintained a trade block against Cuba, while openly supporting dictatorial, strong man or authoritarian regimes in clear violation of human rights—such as those in Pakistan, Indonesia or Colombia? Although it once gave strong military and economic aid to Iraq, during the war against Iran, it subsequently imposed a trade blockade and then invaded the country.  

             2)      Why have human rights violations been pinpointed in countries on the “enemy” list while abuses in friendly countries have been pushed under the carpet—as in Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Thailand?

           3)      Why is it that on the one hand globalization has been praised as the political and economic solution for the future, yet political, legal and physical walls (such as that between the U.S. and Mexico) have been raised to limit the influx of persons from poor areas of the world to “developed” countries?          

        Has this policy of economic, political and military pressure enhanced the situation of the U.S. in the world? Has it improved that of those who live outside the carefully designed perimeter of the U.S.? Has it lessoned the danger of atomic warfare? Has it really done anything significant to reduce terrorism, poverty and exploitation in the world?       

         What is behind the criticism in the mass media and among conservative and even liberal politicians of Obama’s call for meeting with countries such as Cuba “with preparation but no preconditions?”  Perhaps the answer is precisely fear of change. The traditional notion that power can only be retained by force. That sharing it—through non-conditioned dialogue—would suppose the need to make concessions.       

          This situation, however, also raises an extremely thorny question: can this historical continuum in U.S. foreign policy be changed? Should Obama or anyone else really propose an about face how would the Pentagon react? Multinational corporations? The oil industry? The consumer society itself?         

         What would happen if authentic negotiations should be carried out among all of the world’s nations on issues ranging from military interventionism, trade blockades, fair trade, ecology, the warming up of the planet, contamination and the viability of continuing the present model of economic and social development?