6 May 2014, 11:43

US top leaders' concern over Crimea is about fear of losing global power – Chomsky

US top leaders' concern over Crimea is about fear of losing global power – Chomsky

The top leaders in the US are very much concerned about Crimea but this worry is mainly about the fear of losing its global control, according to a recent article written by political thinker and MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

His article, featured on alternet.org, points out that America's red lines sit solidly at Russia's borders but by Russia taking on Crimea as its own, this crossed the US' delicate lines.

Throughout Chomsky's article, he gives varied examples of just how serious this crisis has turned out to be, stating that commentators are comparing the recent events going on in Ukraine to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

In this day and age, one of the most strenuous of international crimes happened when the UK and US invaded Iraq but this event did not interrupt the world's order. Chomsky says this is because, "after failing to gain international support, the aggressors didn't cross Russian or Chinese red lines." On the contrary, with President Putin's liberation of Crimea and his goals in Ukraine, these very activities have crossed America's precious red lines.

"Obama is focused on isolating Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state," Peter Baker reported in The New York Times. These red lines of US' are solidly placed at Russia's borders. Since this is so, Russia's ambitious projects in its own backyard "violate world order and create crises," according to what Chomsky wrote in his article posted on alternet.org.

The point on where the red lines stop and start are then put into perspective by the professor. Various nations are at times allowed to implement such red lines at their borders where in fact the US has already placed its own lines. However that is not the case for Iraq. Another case this is not valid for is Iran, a nation that the US threatens to attack.

Such violent threats not only are prohibited by the United Nations Charter but also by the General Assembly resolution "condemning Russia that the United States just signed," remarked Chomsky in his article. The resolution started out by putting stress on the UN Charter ban in accordance to "the threat or use of force" in the instance of international affairs.

Take for instance the Cuban missile crisis. In this scenario it clearly showed the great dominators' red lines. The world came so close to a nuclear war after President Kennedy refused to accept Premier Khrushchev's offer to put the crisis to an end by withdrawing their missiles from different locations at the same time. The Soviet missiles would be removed from Cuba while and at the same time the US missiles would be taken out of Turkey.

"The U.S. missiles were already scheduled to be replaced by far more lethal Polaris submarines, part of the massive system threatening Russia's destruction," Chomsky pointed out in his article on alternet.org. In that situation as well, the US' red lines were right at Russia's borders and that was a move deemed as acceptable by all sides.

In the most recent publication of the Harvard-MIT journal International Security, Oxford University professor Yuen Foong Khong explained in detail, that there is a "long (and bipartisan) tradition in American strategic thinking: Successive administrations have emphasized that a vital interest of the United States is to prevent a hostile hegemon from dominating any of the major regions of the world," as stated on alternet.org.

Going even further, it is most likely agreed upon that the US needs to "maintain its predominance," as "it is U.S. hegemony that has upheld regional peace and stability," it was stated in an alternet.org article.

Chomsky compares the likes of how the US poached Guantanamo from Cuba and what is currently going on with Crimea becoming a part of Russia. "Crimea is historically Russian; it has Russia's only warm-water port, the home of Russia's fleet; and has enormous strategic significance. The United States has no claim at all to Guantanamo, other than its monopoly of force," Chomsky states in his article.

One valid reason as to why the US will not give Guantanamo back to Cuba is most likely because it is a major harbor and with the US' control over the territory, it puts a severe damper on Cuba's efforts in development. The author, Chomsky, points out that, that has been a major US policy aim for the past 50 years, as well as "large-scale terror and economic warfare."

Even though the US claims that it is in utter shock over Cuba's human rights violations, it is overlooking the worst immoral practice of all, the actions that happen in Guantanamo. The professor highlights that none of these horrific actions crosses anyone nations' red lines or causes any form of crisis. Instead, it is dropped into the category like the US' invasion of Iraq— or as Chomsky puts it, "the regular overthrow of parliamentary regimes and installation of vicious dictatorships, and our hideous record of other exercises of upholding peace and stability."

 

  •  
    and share via