MULTILATERALISM IS THE WAY FORWARD

The path of Anglo-American unilateralism has already failed and it is time for the world to start moving towards unity in diversity based on multilateralism based on respect for international law.

By Danny Smith

Only cataclysms and collective tragedies such as wars, massacres and all the injustices that surround them, are episodes that lead people to become aware of the value, sanctity and fragility of life. The course of two brutal world wars during the 20th century and the founding of a forum such as the United Nations were supposed to have changed the mentality of humanity. As soon as this new paradigm was established, the new problems began to worsen until the beginning of the new millennium.

The era of unipolarity dictated by the USA and international organizations (political, financial and economic) under its influence is over and a sign of this can be seen in NATO's adventure in Ukraine. Under such an Anglo-centric and consumerist scheme, a democratic international system could never develop (assuming that this is what they were looking for). But in reality, one has to ask oneself, is that what the US was looking for after prevailing over the USSR?

Today more than ever, the inhabitants of the globe are aware of what has represented a world under a single command that has underhandedly and extortively imposed its ways of life and government on peoples who already had their own convictions, cultures and political systems, even older than the proclaimed (and never complied with) Greek democracy (promoted by Aristotle in 1317 bc), which the Americans supposedly took as a model.

If for Western scholars (Americans and Europeans) Greece is the cradle of humanity, it certainly is not for people in other latitudes, why should it be? For the East, the paradigms of its political life and the relationship with authority have other origins as legitimate as the promoted democracy, which, by the way, and I reiterate, is not practiced by its promoters. Swindle.

What can the USA and its nineteenth-century liberalism of some two hundred years point out to a Persian culture of more than 4000 years, to the eight-century-old culture of the Slavic peoples of the Russian Federation or to the very ancient history of China?

For the Arab-Islamic world and much of Asia, the origin of mankind was thousands of years before the Greeks in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. It was in those lands that man took his first steps and where among other relics of extinct civilizations was the tomb of Adam until the Anglo-American invaders plundered (among many other things) his mausoleum and stole his remains. 

Latin America also saw this disdain for native peoples and their customs. Far from being respected as part of humanity itself, they were massacred by superior interests that moved first from the metropolis of Europe and then from the democracy of the North. Has anyone forgotten the massacres in Guatemala and El Salvador during the seventies or the crimes against the indigenous people in the Brazilian Amazon? Each and every one of these episodes was driven by interests that ended up being economic, which the “great democracy” wanted to control. Why isn't socialism viable in Cuba or 21st century socialism in Venezuela?

The same thing happened in Africa. Europe during the colonial period and then after the end of the Second World War with the search for independence from the European metropolis came a period of instability, war, misery and chaos, not because of the “ignorance of the blacks” but because of the hand of private companies, also European, seeking to control their resources and with it their economies and their governments. The Zambian representative was clear in expressing the need for a multilateral world to put an end to the deceitful and unfair dependencies of the West. Under the pretext of helping governments and the economies of underdeveloped countries, the Europeans and the United States placed an imperceptible fine wire (called IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods) around the necks of African rulers who, if they pull on it, will be either strangled or be decapitated.

The latter in reference to those who have tried to leave this framework have ended up very badly. In a clearer and more precise sense, when any government has demanded to manage its profits or rethink the marketing format outside the directives that imply abiding by the guidelines of these international organizations, they have suffered the worst of fates. Thus, when Saddam Hussein proposed that he would trade oil with a currency other than the dollar, complications arose that would begin with an Anglo-American intervention and a coalition of opportunists with the war of 1991 and the subsequent invasion in 2003. The bargaining chip.

The same thing would happen to Libyan President Mohammad Gaddafi in 2011 who was trying to abandon the dollar to govern his oil market with a different standard and what happened? What we all already know.

Today, a change and an alternative to the paradigm of Anglo-American consumerism marked by the dollar and its SWITF financial communications system is underway. In spite of all the ditches and traps that the Western financial Establishment set for Russia, Putin's government has managed to readapt its economy and together with China they are heading towards a plausible expectation for the beginning of a new era of multilateralism.