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.