{"id":107395,"date":"2020-10-08T17:02:48","date_gmt":"2020-10-09T00:02:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=107395"},"modified":"2020-10-08T17:05:19","modified_gmt":"2020-10-09T00:05:19","slug":"the-american-neo-conservatives-who-they-are-their-history-and-their-global-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2020\/10\/08\/the-american-neo-conservatives-who-they-are-their-history-and-their-global-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"The American Neo-conservatives: Who They Are, Their History, and Their Global Impact"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><em>Sriyan de Silva<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n<p><strong>Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defining Characteristics<br>A Historical Perspective of the Neo-Conservative Movement\u00a0 and Its Agenda<br>Global Impact of Neo-Conservatism and the Ravages of War<br>An Overall Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Defining Characteristics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In discussing the Neo-Conservative movement [the\nadherents of which are commonly referred to as \u2018Neo-cons\u2019, which term will be\nused throughout this Paper to refer to them], it is useful and even necessary\nto identify its defining characteristics. This movement might also be referred\nto as a set of beliefs. Many believe that the Neo-cons have done untold damage\nto other countries and also to the US itself, bringing upon it the reputation\nof a country that destabilizes other countries not only through war, but by\nother means as well. These critics would perhaps prefer to describe the\nmovement as one which, at its heart, has a destructive agenda inimical to the\ninterests of the majority of the world\u2019s population. A description of this\nmovement and an identification of its objectives are especially necessary\nbecause as we will see in the next section, in course of time, changes have occurred\nin the focus and main beliefs among essentially three generations of Neo-cons. Unless\notherwise stated, the focus of this Section will be on the beliefs and\nobjectives of the second and third [the last including the current] generations\nof Neo-cons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Anthropologist and author Wade Davis in an article\ntitled Unravelling of America\u201d [August 2020] has provided the following\nchilling facts regarding the USA\u2019s propensity to promote wars and destabilize\ncountries. The quotation below is explicable only by reference to the subject\nmatter of my essay which makes clear why the USA has been persistently engaged\nI military adventures. Davis states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The United States, virtually a\ndemilitarized nation on the eve of the Second World War, never stood down in\nthe wake of victory. To this day, American troops are deployed in&nbsp; 150 countries. Since the 1970s, China has not\nonce gone to war; the US has not spent a day at peace. President Jimmy Carter\nrecently noted that that in its 242 year history, America has enjoyed only 16\nyears of peace, making it, as he wrote, \u2018the most war-like nation in the\nhistory of the world\u2019. Since 2001, the US has spent over $6 trillion on\nmilitary operations and war, money that might have been invested in the\ninfrastructure at home. China, meanwhile, built its nation pouring more cement\nevery three years than America did in the entire twentieth century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The basic beliefs and objectives of the Neo-cons could\nbe said to consist of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Since the\nNeo-con movement was originally initiated by a group of intellectuals mainly\nfrom the Jewish community in New York, the protection of Israel against its\nenemies represents a fundamental objective, even though at its inception the\nfocus was on domestic issues. This objective has remained paramount to this\nday. The overwhelming majority of Neo-cons continues to be from the Jewish\ncommunity, although everyone who has been influenced to give effect to the\nobjectives of this movement has not necessarily been a Neo-con. Considering\nthat the Jews are an amazingly gifted and intellectually brilliant people, it\nis not surprising that this small community has been able to exert such\nenormous influence in the US and to re-adapt their agenda from time to time to\nsuit their objectives.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A\nunipolar world in which the US is supreme and there is no question of a balance\nof power. Therefore the rise of any rival power must be checked. The Neo-cons\nclaim that unipolarity ensures world peace, and that the US does not seek to\nconquer and oppress, but rather to liberate and democratize.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A policy\nof ensuring the supremacy of the USA as the world\u2019s only super power.&nbsp; Destabilizing and ensuring a regime change\neven through military intervention, in a country which is perceived as posing a\nthreat to the interests of the USA, or to the interests of Israel, has become a\nhallmark of the Neo-con movement. The Neo-cons believe in a convergence of the\ninterests of the USA and Israel.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>From\nabout the 1980s [and especially in the 1990s] its main focus shifted from\ndomestic issues almost exclusively to a foreign policy intended to shape the\ninternational order to be consistent with American global interests. Prior to\n1990 the threat to these interests was identified as emanating from the Soviet\nUnion &#8211; hence the opposition of the Neo-cons to isolationism and their advocacy\nof an American presence in different parts of the world to counter threats to\nAmerican interests. While promoting democracy as a means of destabilizing the\nSoviet Union, the USA supported and had cozy relationships with countries that\nwere right wing dictatorships as a counter to communism, and in some cases even\nhelped to set up such regimes.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Flowing\nfrom the above, Neo-cons have a low tolerance of diplomacy and\nconsensus-building. Instead, they believe in the use of military force, the\nemphasis being on unilateral action by the USA. Their foreign policy has been\ndescribed by a critic as bellicosity cloaked in the Utopian rhetoric of\nfreedom and democracy.\u201d They have a disdain for multilateral\ninstitutions\/organizations such as the United Nations, which are deemed a\nconstraint on such unilateral action. Such organizations are viewed as being\nundemocratic \u2013 for instance the Security Council includes \u2018dictatorships\u2019\n[China and Russia]. Since at present the Neo-cons have to live with such\norganizations, they have sought to bend these organizations to their will to\nthe extent possible, as they have done in the case of offshoots of the UN.\nCondemnation of other countries, often-times poor and weak ones for alleged war\ncrimes, are considered to be in order, but the US is exempt from them. The Neo-cons\ndo not believe in Treaties and even in International Law [of which Treaties are\nan important component], as they too are seen as constraints on the USA\u2019s right\nto unilateral [military] action or fomenting opposition and discord in particular\ncountries. The Neo-cons do not have much interest in forging an international\nconsensus to achieve foreign policy objectives. Instead, they are more\ninterested in confronting their enemies\u201d than in cultivating friends\u201d. The\nNeo-cons also pursue their objectives through international non-governmental\norganizations [INGOs] which are funded to varying degrees by the USA. A number\nof these INGOs have gained a foothold in developing countries. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Since\nthe protection of Israel is an overarching aim, it is natural that the main,\nthough not the only focus of the Neo-cons, had been the Middle East,\nparticularly countries considered a threat to Israel. This focus may well have\nbeen modified today with the changed relationship between Israel and some of\nthe countries in the Middle East.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>After\nthe collapse of the Soviet Union the Neo-cons saw an opportunity to create a\nuni-polar world in place of the bi-polar one that had hitherto existed with the\nUSA and the Soviet Union holding the balance of power. However, since then the\nability of the US to pursue a militaristic foreign policy has been reduced due\nto the rise of China and the assertiveness of Russia. As such, containing China\nis also one of the foreign policy objectives of the Neo-cons. The US has\nestablished a relationship with India which had not existed during the years of\nthe Cold War&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; . Through India, the US\nhopes to exercise influence over South Asia, and keep it and the surrounding\nseas free of Chinese control or influence.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>It has\neven been claimed that the ultimate goal of the Neo-cons is to build an\nAmerican Empire, though not necessarily modelled on the British Empire since\nphysical occupation of countries as in the British and other Empires would be\nimpossible in the modern world. Instead, the Neo-cons opt for influence over\nthe governments of other countries or setting up proxy regimes which the US\ncould control. Positioning American forces in strategic locations around the\nworld to enable their rapid deployment is a part of this strategy.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>A Historical Perspective of the Neoconservative Movement and its\nAgenda<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justin Vaisse in his Paper for the Brookings Institution\ntitled <em>Why Neo-conservatism Still Matters\n<\/em>[Policy Paper No. 20, May 2010] has pointed out that the original Neo-cons focused\non opposition to the direction that social movements in the USA had taken in\nthe 1960s and 1970s [such as student protests, counter-culture, radical\nfeminism, environmentalism], and their dislike of President Johnson\u2019s social\nprogrammes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What these intellectuals reacted against\nwas a mix of social movements\u2026 While in no way defenders of the free market\n\u2026.they stressed the limits of social engineering [through transfers of wealth\nor affirmative action programmes] and pointed out the dangers that the\nboundless egalitarian dreams of the New Left had created for stability,\nmeritocracy and democracy \u2026. These original Neoconservatives were New\nYork-based intellectuals, primarily interested in domestic issues, and they\nstill regarded themselves as liberals. That is why the disconnect could not\nseem more complete between them and the latter-day neo-cons, who are\nWashington-based political operatives identified with the right, interests\nexclusively in foreign policy, and who have a solid, if not excessive\nconfidence in the ability of the American government to enact social change \u2013\nat least in Iraq or Afghanistan.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Originally the Neo-cons had been supporters of the\nDemocratic Party. Since many of them were Jewish from a minority community,\nthey supported the Civil Rights movement and desegregation which the Black\npeople were fighting for.&nbsp; The split in\nthe Neo-con support for the Democratic Party commenced in the 1960s when the\nVietnam War led to a polarization of American society into those who favoured\nthe war [which the Neo-cons did], and those who opposed it. This, and the\ndirection of the social programmes earlier referred to, as well as the\nemergence of the second generation of Neo-cons who propagated relatively\nextreme views, led the movement to support the Republican Party under Ronald\nReagan. Therefore it could reasonably be said that there is not a great deal of\ncommon ground between the first generation Neo-cons and the second and third\ngenerations other than on the issue of Israel and the furtherance of American\ninterests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To some extent Neo-conservatism suffered a loss of a\npart of its agenda when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990. However, in the mid\n1990s the third generation of Neo-cons emerged around figures such as Irving\nKristol\u2019s son William, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt, Max Boot and Doug Feith.\nTheir shared values include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Not\nbeing liberals as many early Neo-cons had been; they allied themselves with the\nRepublican Party.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A\nforeign policy based on unrestrained use of American power to shape the world,\nespecially the Middle East, in their own image.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Understanding the history of the Neoconservative\nmovement requires a knowledge of some of its key figures. Irrespective of some\nof their extreme views, in many cases they were individuals with outstanding\nintellectual capabilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Arguably the most extreme spiritual leader of the\nmovement was a German Jewish immigrant, Leo Strauss. [See Shadia B. Drury <em>Saving America: Leo Strauss and the\nNeoconservatives<\/em>.] She has been acclaimed as one of the foremost scholars\non the history, philosophy and politics of neo-conservatism. Strauss propounded\nthe theory that the inferiority of the masses required them to be ruled by an\nintelligent elite.He did not believe\nin the modern concepts of the natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of\nhappiness, or that since human beings are born free they could only\nlegitimately be ruled with their consent.&nbsp;\nAs elaborated in his book <em>Natural\nRights and History, <\/em>Strauss denied that the natural human condition was one\nof freedom, claiming instead that it was one of subordination to the ruler. To\nhim the only natural right was the right of the superior to rule the inferior\nmasses. Hitler had contempt for the masses; ironically, so did Strauss. In her\narticle referred to earlier, Shadia Drury states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, what is neo-conservatism? And how does\nit propose to change the world in accordance with Straussian political\nphilosophy? \u2018Neo\u2019 comes from the Greek word neos, which means new. And, what\u2019s\nnew about neo-conservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on\ntradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the\nflow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism\u2026.. is not\nslow or cautious, but active, aggressive and reactionary in the literal sense\nof the term. Inspired by Strauss\u2019 hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to\nturn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many of Strauss\u2019 best known followers such as Allan\nBloom and Irving Kristol rejected the liberal achievements of the 1960s such as\ncivil rights, greater equality, and freedom for women which supposedly became\nthe root of all evil. Irving Kristol has been regarded by many as the father of\nneo-conservatism. In 1979 Esquire Magazine dubbed him the godfather of the\nmost powerful new political force in America \u2013 Neo-conservatism.\u201d He advocated\nthe dismantling of the safeguards institutionalized by the Founding Fathers to\nprotect individual liberty and minority rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The third and successor generation of Neo-cons\nincluded Irving Kristol\u2019s son William, and John the son of Norman Podhoretz.\nDespite obvious continuities, there are four differences in priorities and\npositions between the first and subsequent generations of Neo-cons. The new\ngeneration<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Has\nnever been \u2018left of centre\u2019, so to speak;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Has supported\nthe Republican party, but are now wooing the Democrats&nbsp; as well;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Lacks\nthe relative caution of the first, and to an extent of the second generation.\nFor example, Irving Kristol was skeptical about seeking regime change as an\nAmerican foreign policy objective, whereas it is a key objective of the second\nand the present generation of Neo-cons.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In essence, the modern Neo-cons\u2019 support of a\npolitical party is conditioned by the party\u2019s foreign policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded a \u2018Think\nTank\u2019 in 1997 to promote the idea that American leadership is good for the\nworld and morally desirable as well. In the 1990s the Neo-cons opposed\nPresident Bush Snr. and Bill Clinton because they did not pursue America\u2019s\nstrategic interests on the world stage. The refusal by Bush Snr. to pursue\nSaddam Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait alienated the Neo-cons. They had\nexpected Bush to pursue him through extending support to dissident groups such\nas the Kurds and Shiites in their resistance to Saddam Hussein, and they deeply\nresented Bush\u2019s failure to do so which they regarded as a betrayal and a lost\nopportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The September 2011 attacks on the US strengthened the\nNeo-con agenda when Bush Jnr. committed to invading Iraq together with Tony\nBlair [who misled the House of Commons and who, according to a poll in the UK,\nis regarded as a war criminal by about half the British population]. This put\nthe Neo-cons on centre stage. Critics considered the episode as being based on\na unified ideology supportive of torture, adventurism, and Israel. Dick Cheney\nand Donald Rumsfeld, though probably not Neo-cons themselves were very much\ninfluenced by their agenda. The change in the policy of Bush Jnr. in 2001 with\nIraq, Iran and North Korea being referred to as the \u2018axis of evil\u2019 requiring\npre-emptive war, naturally reflected the objectives of the Neo-cons. Bush Snr.\nin a recent biography has roundly criticized Rumsfeld and Cheney as having\nmisled his son by their crazy views. Rumsfeld and Cheney, with the Neo-cons\nusing them as their instruments, have to bear a part of the responsibility for\nthe mess they created in the Middle East. The administration of Bush Jnr.\ngreatly exaggerated the scale and immensity of the danger posed by Saddam\nHussein. It dramatically underestimated the costs and burdens of the post-war\noccupation of Iraq. Terrorism proved minimal, and weapons of mass destruction\nwere found to be non-existent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Iraq War was a defining moment for the Neo-cons as\nwell as for their critics, and for the country that they destroyed. It caused\/provided\nan impetus for the radicalization and spread of militant Islamist movements\nwhich have plagued the world and the Middle East to this day. The War raised a\nchorus of criticisms. As Alan Wolf has stated in his book <em>The Future of Liberalism <\/em>[2009, page 105]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Iraq proved to be the neoconservatives\u2019\ngreat test case\u2026. Iraq\u2019s history was ignored. Its rivalries with other states\nin the Middle East were downplayed. The consequences of removing Saddam Hussein\nfrom power, spelled out with realistic foresight by George W. Bush\u2019s father in\nhis memoirs, were downplayed. A\u2026.distrust of the sober caution of professional\nmilitary officers and diplomats guided the strategic thinking of the\nneoconservatives, as well as a determination to bend other countries to\nAmerica\u2019s will. Planning for postwar reconstruction was guided by the fantasy\nthat a reliance on free markets could restore the Iraqi economy in miraculous\nways. This is not the world according to Machiavelli or Clausewitz. It is the\nworld according to \u2026.dreamy enthusiasts for Empire\u2026..\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Iraq War also led to Francis Fukuyama, an\ninternationally renowned political scientist and neoconservative, to leave the\nmovement. A blistering critique of the War by Fukuyama resulted in an\nacrimonious debate between him and the Neo-con Charles Krauthammer. This was\nthe first time that a Neo-con openly and publicly sought to so stridently\nexpose the hollowness of the Neo-con agenda of military intervention. It is the\nfact that he was one of them\u201d that upset the Neo-cons as much as it did. His\ncritique was published in the 2004 Summer issue of <em>The National Interest, <\/em>which is a flagship conservative foreign\npolicy journal [See also Danny Postel Fukuyama\u2019s Moment: A Neo-con Schism\nOpens\u201d in 27 October 2004: <em>Open\nDemocracy.<\/em>]Fukuyama\u2019s criticisms\nrelated mainly to the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nunreality of the Neo-con claim that the USA could transform Iraq into a Western\nstyle democracy, which form of government could be extended to the rest of the\nMiddle East.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>America\nhad intervened in 18 countries since 1900, and has a very poor record of \u2018reconstruction\u2019\nand nation-building after intervention. It has not been able to successfully\nengage in reconstruction after regime change. The US has consistently displayed\nits inability or unwillingness to pursue its purported mission of establishing\ndemocracy, which involves a complex process of reconstruction taking account of\nculture, traditions, religion and history; the creation of necessary\ninstitutions and the revival of the economy \u2013 even assuming that democracy can\nbe militarily imposed. The Bush Jr. administration had believed that the US\ncould go into Iraq&nbsp; and leave within a\nyear with its mission accomplished, thus displaying even before the invasion,\nits lack of commitment to its declared objective of ensuring the setting up of\na democratic system of government in place of an autocratic regime. The policy\nmakers drew a wrong analogy between what happened in Eastern Europe [quick\ncollapse of the Soviet Union] and what would happen in the Middle East once the\ncoercive regimes are removed. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The push\nby the Neo-cons for an uni-polar world which has increased the antagonism for\nthe USA among other countries, was challenged by him, as well as <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The unreality\nof bringing about democracy through military force.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Since the 1950s Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton\nUniversity had advocated the US taking a hard line against all Arab states. In\nthe mid-1990s, influenced by him, Richard Perle and other Neo-cons advocated\nthe Lebanization\u201d of countries such as Iraq and Syria \u2013 referred to in <em>A Clean Break<\/em> [a Policy Document of 1996\nby a group led by Richard Perle for the Prime Minister of Israel]. There are\nmany who do not believe that the objective of the Neo-cons was to establish\ndemocracy in Iraq but to flatten it to remove it as a threat to Israel\u201d. In\n1996 the Neo-cons believed that the removal of Saddam Hussein would destabilize\nthe entire Middle East, facilitating governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and\nothers, as well as Arafat, to be&nbsp;\nreplaced. In this way, re-drawing the map of the Middle East and\nreshaping it would benefit Israel [see D. Wurmser <em>Tyranny\u2019s Ally: <\/em>&nbsp;1996].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 1997 the Neo-cons advocated a forcible and bloody\nre-taking of Palestinian land by Israel. They believed that a country\u2019s leader\nis justified in committing evil in the defence of his country [M. Ledeen]. Ledeen\nwas a Neo-con and Foreign Policy analyst who chaired the Foundation for the\nDefense of Democracies. According to the Washington Post, he was the only full\ntime international affairs analyst regularly consulted by Karl Rove, the\nclosest advisor of George W. Bush [Jnr.]. Following a speech in the 1990s where\nhe stated that every 10 years or so the US should pick up some small country\nand throw it against the wall just to demonstrate to the world that America\nmeans business, his colleagues at the National Review dubbed it the Ledeen\nDoctrine. In November 2000 D. Wurmser advocated that the US and Israel should\nstrike fatally against Arab radicalizations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the current century the Neo-con agenda continues to\nbe dominated by their vision of the US as the unchallenged super-power in a uni-polar\nworld, immune from threats from other countries, and acting as a benevolent\nglobal hegemony\u201d. In this vision the US would replace failed states or\noppressive regimes which are deemed threats to US interests. The\ndemocratization\u201d [read regime change\u201d] of the Middle East would eliminate the\nbreeding ground for terrorists. The reality of course has been different, as we\nshall see. The Neo-cons claim that this approach, achieved through strong US\nleadership backed by force, is best for world peace, and not treaties which are\nignored by tyrants, and a US not shackled by international organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One of the most influential Neo-cons in the present\ncentury is Robert Kagan. He viewed the possible successful liberation of the\nUkraine as a prelude to its incorporation into NATO and the European Union,\nthus expanding the West\u2019s hegemony and increasing the number of its allies. In\n2004 the Neo-cons concluded that<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nfundamental determinant of the relationship between States rests on military\npower and the willingness to use it;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nprimary focus should be on the Middle East and global Islam as the main threat\nto American interests.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>To\noperationalize these ideas, the Neo-cons<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>continue\nto focus on and emphasize the unipolar\u201d power of the US which enables global\nunilateralism\u201d, and view the use of military force as the main option in\nforeign policy \u2013 not diplomacy and negotiation; and<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>therefore,\nthey are contemptuous of America\u2019s conventional diplomatic organs such as its\nState Department and its Divisions [unless of course they control these&nbsp; organs as well].<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Robert Kagan found Hilary Clinton receptive to a shift\nto the right and towards a tougher line being espoused by powerful Democrats on\nforeign policy issues. Kagan sought to create a coalition of Democrats and\nRepublicans who would support Clinton\u2019s national security positions if she won\nthe Presidency. Kagan\u2019s engagement with Clinton was reciprocated by her. It is\nsaid that Clinton extended one hand to the Neo-cons, while she clutched issues\nsuch as women\u2019s rights, democracy and climate change in the other. When she was\nSecretary of State she appointed Kagan to her bi-partisan State Department\nadvisory group, and his wife, Victoria Nuland as her spokeswoman. Clinton\u2019s position\non Syria [wanted early military aid to the rebels], Iraq [extending the date\nfor the US troops pull-out], and Afghanistan [wanted longer US military\npresence] made the Neo-cons hopeful that they could \u2018do business with her\u2019 on\nthe matters that concern them most. Eric Margolis in The Irrelevance of Susan\nRice\u201d in the <em>American Conservative<\/em> [4\nDecember 2012] said that the war on terror had doubled US military and\nintelligence budgets, that brawn had replaced brains in foreign affairs, and\nthat the next Secretary of State should restore non-military diplomacy\nindicating that Susan Rice should not be the person to fill this post. Rice is\nsaid to have been particularly anti-Arab and anti-Islam, and was scathing and\nsneering at the Palestinians in the UN General Assembly when the UN granted\nPalestine observer status. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kagan, and more stridently and forcefully Charles\nKrauthammer [another leading hard school Neo-con], viewed Europe\u2019s opposition\nto military intervention as advocated by the Neo-cons as being na\u00efve about the\ndangers facing the world. Since only the US understands power, Kagan sees no\nreason to listen to anyone else. Kagan\u2019s focus has been threats from and within\nsmaller countries. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the pre-occupation of\nthe Neo-cons with Great Power politics declined. They did not see China as a\nthreat, or that neither China nor Russia is docile. Kagan was earlier not\nparticularly concerned by China because militarily China trailed the US by a\nwide margin; neither was he impressed with China\u2019s economic gains. He believed\nthat China can become a super power only when there are no other powers in\nAsia. He shifted his attention to \u2018misbehaving\u2019 minor states, threats from\nIslamic terrorists, and to dictators seeking to possess nuclear weapons. He is a\nleading proponent of regime change believing that Iran must be brought to heel\nwith military intervention if sanctions do not work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite the utter chaos caused by US interventions in\nIraq, Libya and Afghanistan, the Neo-con agenda remains US global domination,\nemasculating the United Nations and bending it to its will. The BBC concurred\nwith this view of the Neo-con agenda. The power of the Neo-cons to influence\nthe directions of US foreign policy may be substantial irrespective of who the\nnext President will be. Robert Kagan\u2019s relationship with Hillary Clinton, and\nthe fact that President Obama had in his administration three committed female\nNeo-cons, underscored this probability. The three ladies were Samantha Power [a\nbrilliant lawyer and orator], Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland, the wife of\nRobert Kagan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In these circumstances the following statement by\nPeter Just in his article Unconventional Allies Reunited: Liberal Hawks and Neoconservatives\nat the Turn of the Century\u201d in <em>Current\nObjectives of Postgraduate American Studies <\/em>2010 Vol.11, may turn out to be\nquite prescient:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2026.it is fair to speculate that the\nDemocratic Party might once again become the home of the neoconservatives.\nSecond generation neoconservatives like the publicist Max Boot see themselves\ndisconnected from their ideological fathers, reflecting a development that\ncould trigger various responses: will neo-conservatism eventually really blend in\nwith conservatism in general, as predicted in the early 1990s by Irving\nKristol, or will it even return to its roots in the Democratic Party and join\nforces there with the liberal internationalists? One thing is certain \u2013 the\nUnited States will not stop promoting American values and ideals. But the\ndebate over the specific ways and means to achieve that goal is far from over.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Notwithstanding the loathing the Neo-con foreign\npolicies have attracted in many parts of the world, it would be a mistake to\nthink that their influence is on the wane. Justin Vaisse\u2019s Why Neo-conservatism\nStill Matters\u201d is not an apology or a defence of neo-conservatism. Rather, as\nthe title suggests, it is an analytical explanation of why neo-conservatism is\nstill influential. However, events in the latter part of 2015 which will be\nreferred to in the next section of this Paper, may have had the potential to either\ndiminish its legitimacy, influence and importance or else enhance it.\nHistorically many Neoconservatives have been leading figures with exceptional\nintellectual powers, irrespective of whether one accepts their views or not.\nNeo-cons have institutions which research and churn out influential\npublications. Their institutions and projects attract huge funding from\nconservative donors and foundations, and there is an unabating flow of such\nsupport. Max Boot, another leading Neo-con, has stated that Neo-cons are well\nplaced due to the institutions that support them and publications that\ndisseminate their views and shape public debate. Young Neo-cons read and\ncontribute to these publications. Sending public letters on issues in the name\nof both Neo-cons and non-Neo-cons is a part of their <em>modus operandi. <\/em>[See Max Boot Think Again Neo-cons\u201d in <em>Council on Foreign Relations<\/em>,\nJanuary-February 2004].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Global Impact of Neo-conservatism and the Ravages of War<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In assessing the consequences and impact of the Neo-con\nmovement, attention will not be paid to consequences within the USA except to\nthe extent relevant to US foreign policy and to its implementation. The first\ngeneration of Neo-cons influenced opinions about the direction of social\nprogrammes within the USA. This focus changed with the second and third\ngenerations of Neo-cons whose agenda impacted overwhelmingly on US foreign\npolicy, and therefore on other countries around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Irrespective of which side one is on in regard to the\nquestion of Israel, it is beyond doubt that the Neo-cons have been largely\nresponsible for the protection and survival of Israel in a hostile environment.\nThe analysis and assessment of the impact of Neo-conservatism in this section\nwill therefore address issues other than the protection of Israel. In that\nrespect, other than the humanitarian considerations which could justify the\nintervention in Bosnia, one can see little, if any, positive consequences of\nthe Neo-con movement. The consequences and impact of the Neo-cons in the\nforeign policy field relative to other countries are the focus of this Section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>First<\/strong>, the example of Iraq, invaded, decimated\nand destabilized after disseminating false information about\nits possession of weapons of mass destruction, and after using the attacks of\nSeptember 2011 by terrorists as a basis for the invasion though these had no\nconnection to Iraq, is one of the best examples of the decimation of a country\nthrough the Neo-con foreign policy of waging war. Such action is all the more\ninexcusable when one considers that there was no \u2018reconstruction\u2019 of the\ncountry after the demise of Saddam Hussein, either deliberately or due to the\nineptitude of the US&nbsp; at \u2018creating\u2019 and\n\u2018building\u2019 as opposed to destruction. When one adds the similar fate that Libya\nand Afghanistan have been subjected to, the enormity\nof the disastrous consequences of Neo-con policy is obvious. It is principally\nthe European countries that have to bear the consequences and fallout of jihadist reprisals and the burden of mass\nmigration of refugees to Europe in the second half of 2015. Among these\nrefugees have been jihadists responsible for chaos and death in Europe such as\nthe events in Paris in November 2015. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 13 July 2015 columnist Robert Parry [a\nprize-winning investigative Reporter] wrote that in early 2014 Victoria Nuland,\nRobert Kagan\u2019s wife, a member of Obama\u2019s administration, engineered a regime\nchange in the Ukraine without weighing the consequences,\nthereby diminishing the standards of living of the people, causing\nstarvation of pensioners, the destruction of infrastructure, and a complete\nseverance of economic ties to Russia which had been its major economic partner\nand market for Ukrainian goods. Wayne Madsen, in the online journal <em>Strategic Culture Foundation <\/em>[18\nDecember 2013] said that she even handpicked Ukraine\u2019s new Prime Minister,\nthereby setting up an anti-Russian administration on Russia\u2019s border. She\npromoted neo-Nazi militias and even Islamist militants to wage an anti-terror\nwar against ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted regime change [See also Robert\nParry in Consortiumnews.com]. She ignored the practical realities \u2013 the\nexisting ethnic and religious fissures. She ignored the mess and ugliness thus created\nby the Neo-cons and simply sought someone else to blame. However, Nuland\u2019s\nblunder of conducting a telephone conversation two weeks prior to the coup in\nthe Ukraine with the American ambassador which was taped and intercepted,\nreveals an agreement to \u2018nurse\u2019 the anticipated coup. This is incontrovertible\nevidence that the US Government supported the uprising at the highest levels.\nThe US intervention in the Ukraine resulted in a closer alliance between Russia\nand China. The Ukraine is yet another example of Neo-con influence creating\nchaos rather than stable democratic governments. Control of the Ukraine by NATO\nhas long been an aim of Neo-cons such as McCain and Nuland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After the Bush administration Nuland ensured that the\nNeo-cons continued to have an influence on the new President\u2019s foreign policy.\nAs Hillary Clinton\u2019s Press Spokeswoman, she ensured that the Neo-con slant\nwould be prominent in the State Department. Examples of such influence include\nthe CIA\u2019s coup against President Zalaya of the Honduras, the overthrow of\nGadafi and US support for uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Nuland was criticized\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[as was Clinton]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> for the attack on the US diplomatic mission\/CIA facility in\nBenghazi which killed the US Ambassador. But influential friends in the Neocon\nhierarchy ensured the scotching of such criticism, enabling the confirmation of\nNuland\u2019s appointment as the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and\nEurasian Affairs without opposition from the Republican Party. This provided\nher with the opportunity to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Ukraine\nand other countries. Nuland is a strong supporter of George Soros, who is a\nmajor source of funding for the Neo-con movement. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is worthwhile noting some of the evidence, which is\noverwhelming, that military intervention and the promotion of coups and the\nlike are key methods advocated by the American Neo-cons to achieve their\nobjectives. The following are only a sample of such promotion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nIraq War, based on disinformation and false premises.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nintervention in the Ukraine already referred to, which led to the Ukraine\ndescending into civil war in 2014.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nmilitary interventions in Libya and Afghanistan. The 2011 regime change in\nLibya followed Gaddafi\u2019s actions against groups in Eastern Libya which were\nidentified as Islamic terrorists. The US and allied bombing destroyed Gaddafi\u2019s\narmy, and led to Gaddafi\u2019s torture and murder. The Libyan adventure turned sour\nwhen the very Islamic terrorists Gaddafi had warned the US about seized\nterritory, turning it into another Iraq-like badlands. Reality hit home with\nthe murder of the US Ambassador and the attack on the US embassy\/CIA facility\nin Benghazi in September 2012. Terrorism was so out of control that the US and\nEuropean countries abandoned their embassies in Tripoli, and the ISIS\ndecapitated Coptic Christians and slaughtered heretics\u201d resulting in migration\nof Libyans to Europe. What the West, goaded on by the Neo-cons did, was to\ndestroy a country which was a buffer against Islamic terrorists, and instead create\nanother haven for such terrorists. At the time of the intervention, Libya was a\ncountry without a national debt and her people were socially and economically\nmuch better off than people under similar regimes in the region.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>In the\n1980s President Reagan gave the Neo-cons a major role in activities in Central\nAmerica, but kept them out of the Middle East and European politics. In Central\nAmerica the Neo-cons unleashed death squads, and even engaged in genocide in a\nbroad, rather than a legal or technical, sense against peasants, students and\nworkers. This led to a flood of refugees to the US especially from El Salvador\nand Guatemala. The Neo-cons crushed progressive social movements, reinforced\noligarchic control of countries, thus leaving most countries in Central America\nin the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, driving more refugees to\nthe US through Mexico. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Second<\/strong>, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the\nmost unforgivable consequence of Neo-con policies and actions is the impetus they\ngave to the creation of militant Islamist groups,\nand its reflection in the various movements such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and\nISIS. The freedom\u201d fighters that the US armed and trained in Afghanistan\ndecades ago to fight the Russian forces there were the very people who\ntransformed themselves into the Taliban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One does not have to rely only on the anti-Neo-cons\nand the research into the strengthening of al-Qaeda and the creation of ISIS as\na result of the Iraq War, to be convinced of this consequence.&nbsp; President Obama acknowledged in an interview\nin March 2015 that the power of the IS which was established in Iraq and Syria\nin 2014 was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War in 2003. Even Tony Blair,\nwho allied with the Neo-cons on the invasion of Iraq, earning the wrath of the\nBritish people, acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq helped towards the\ncreation of ISIS. The militarism of the Neo-cons, regardless of the\nconsequences to other countries, is reflected in a revelation made by the\nretired US Army General Wesley Clark. He said that after the attack on the twin\ntowers in 2001 a unit called the Pentagon\u2019s Office of Special Plans had been\ncreated by the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the benefit of the\ninfluential Neo-cons Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. These two Neo-cons\npropounded a strategy to overthrow the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya,\nSomalia, Sudan and Iran by 2006. &nbsp;Paul\nBremen was placed in charge of activities in Iraq after the invasion. The\npolicies he carried out created the opportunity for Al-Qaeda, and later ISIS,\nto entrench themselves in Iraq. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom!!\n[See Kamal Wickremasinghe France Needs the Wisdom of Enlightenment\u201d in <em>The Island <\/em>[Sri Lanka] of 20 November\n2015].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Paris bombings on 13 November 2015 can to some\nextent be linked to the success of the US in obtaining active French\ninvolvement to attack other countries. The former French President Jacques\nChirac had predicted that the Iraq War would destabilize the Middle East and\nstrengthen terrorism. French opposition to the Iraq War led the US to even\nthreaten France, and to puerile and small-minded conduct such as banning the\nsale of French wine in Pennsylvania. The US and the Neo-cons ultimately had\ntheir way by \u2018controlling\u2019 France in regard to their agenda in the Middle East\nthrough the subsequent French Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande.\nFrance led the joint British and US forces against Libya, and supported the\nSyrian rebels in their attempt to oust President Assad. French participation in\nthe US bombing raids in Syria could have contributed in part to the Paris\nbombings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The security issues and loss of life in Western\ncountries resulting from the activities of these groups are in fact the result\nof the Neo-cons being outsmarted and falling into the trap conceived by militant,\nradical Islamist movements. Al-Qaeda had originally been unable to overthrow\ngovernments in the Arab states because it had not been able to secure\nsubstantial support in those countries. Therefore the movement switched to a\nstrategy of provoking the US to invade such countries, which would in turn\nradicalize a mass of people not only in those countries but in other Middle\nEastern countries as well. Hence the 9\/11 attacks on the US had the very effect\ndesired, since it resulted in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This in turn led to\nfurther numbers of Islamists joining the radical movement. Gwynne Dyer in the\narticle Paris Attacks: The Terrorist Strategy\u201d published in <em>The Island <\/em>newspaper [Sri Lanka] of\nThursday, 19 November 2015 at page 8 pointed out that the organization known as\nAl-Qaeda in Iraq\u201d changed to Islamic State in Iraq\u201d in 2006, thereafter to\nIslamic State in Iraq and Syria\u201d [ISIS] in 2013, and thence to Islamic State\u201d\nin 2014. The ISIS was able to conquer much territory in both Iraq and Syria\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[see Dyer for the split between al-Qaeda and the ISIS]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>. The three month war\nwhich the ISIS fought in 2014 with what is called the Nusra Front of al-Qaeda\nwhich had split from ISIS, was followed by the Nusra Front gaining control of\nmost of Eastern Syria, while the ISIS conquered most of Western Iraq, renaming\nit the Islamic State. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Third<\/strong>, there is a considerable body of opinion\nthat is, to say the least, highly sceptical of the Neo-cons\u2019 claim that their\nforeign policy objectives have been to promote democracy and freedom. There is\nno evidence which establishes that this claim is genuine and <em>bona fide. <\/em>The devastation their\npolicies created in countries in which the US intervened has not led to any\nchange of heart, so to speak, about the appropriateness of the means they advocate\nto achieve their supposedly noble objectives for the sake of the people of\nthose countries. Besides, it is common sense \u2013 and requires little education or\nlearning \u2013 to understand that democracy cannot be imposed by force or war. Neo-cons\nare unable or not prepared to understand or recognize the deep-rooted religious\nand cultural factors that can impede the flowering of democracy \u2013 especially in\na form that is a replication of the American model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What makes the Neo-con agenda so dangerous is that being\na group of people with exceptional intellectual capabilities, their agenda is <strong>not <\/strong>the result of ignorance of the\nconsequences of their policies and actions. Their\nobjectives are anything but freedom and democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Fourth,<\/strong> the implementation of Neo-con foreign\npolicy has created considerable upheavals in people\u2019s lives which had been\nrelatively safe and peaceful, poverty where relatively little of it had\nexisted, or else enhanced existing levels of poverty. Libya was not a country\nwith levels of poverty found in several other countries. The Neo-cons, by their\nactions, came close to creating havoc in Europe, short of destabilizing it.\nThis is a matter of supreme indifference to the Neo-cons, some of whose\nattitudes towards Europe border on contempt. The words used by a neo-con\nofficial of the US administration relative to the European Union in a recorded\ntelephone conversation with an American ambassador is unprintable, indicating the\nNeo-cons\u2019 desire to show Europe its proper place.&nbsp; The ravages of war so to speak, are creating\nhavoc not only in some developing countries but in developed economies as well.\nA further chain reaction is the impact that American interventions have had on\nmajor economies, not to speak of poor countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Fifth,<\/strong> the Neo-cons\u2019 foreign policy objectives\nhave undermined state sovereignty when hegemonic objectives are opposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Sixth,<\/strong> for the Neo-cons, ideas are everything and\npragmatism is shunned in favour of a Utopian vision of an American benevolent\nhegemony.&nbsp; The inspiration one of the\ngodfathers of the movement [Leo Strauss] drew from the ancient Greek\nphilosopher Plato and the historian Thucydides is a measure of the unreal and\ndangerous views they hold about the modern world. In other words, to be\ninspired by a civilization of 2,000 to 2,500 years ago to justify not only\nunilateral militarism, but also the belief that a few elite should rule the\nmasses, is a reflection of the danger the Neo-cons pose to the world. The Neo-con\nagenda, instead of promoting democracy, advocates at least indirectly, a form\nof dictatorship within the country, and a form of imperialism\/colonialism\nabroad. As Shadia Drury [referred to earlier] aptly concluded: \u201dIt is ironic that\nAmerican neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of\nliberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&nbsp;Seventh<\/strong>, the policy of the Neo-cons in pursuing unipolarity\nin the world has increased hatred for the United States in the broader fight\nfor hearts and minds\u201d [Francis Fukuyama]. An underlying [non-transparent] theme\nof the Neo-cons is that America does not belong to a world community because it\nis the super power to which everyone else must pay homage. There is no need to\nhave close relationships with countries to address problems in other countries.\nThere is only the ruler and the ruled. The world view of the Neo-cons is myopic\nand their ideology accounts for their disinterest in even understanding the\nworld. Robert Parry, in Consortiumnews.com of 15 September 2015, contends that\nthe Neo-cons have arguably damaged American national interests more than any\nother group in modern history. Their policies have plunged the US into\nill-considered wars wasting money and resources, destroying millions of lives\nincluding of Americans, and destabilizing large sections of the planet. He\nstates that the US foreign policy is deformed and no longer capable of\nformulating coherent strategies. Yet despite their record of unprecedented\nerrors, American Neo-cons remain the dominant foreign policy force demanding\nmore regime change as well as a Cold War. Neo-cons have been immune from\nsuffering the consequences of the catastrophes they have caused, continuing to\ndominate Washington\u2019s think tanks and the news media, and to hold key positions\nin the administration. Neo-cons are skilled operatives; they know how to obtain\nsteady funding and are adept at writing articles that twist any set of facts to\nsuit their ideological cause; supply just the right quote\/information to the\npublic, and host policy conferences that attract powerful politicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Eighth,<\/strong> the Neo-cons have largely, or at least\npartly, been responsible for undermining respect and credibility in many\ncountries for the United Nations, and resentment against it for its lack of\nimpartiality and selectivity. The whole agenda of intervening in countries\nthrough Resolutions relating to human rights violations is a case in point.\nWhat is particularly critical in this regard is the creation of organs within\nthe UN system to do the bidding of the US in particular, primarily to open\ndoors for Western or US intervention in other countries even if not militarily.\nThere is little doubt that the UN has been to an undesirable extent literally\nreduced to being a servant of Western interests, and the US in particular. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The proof of the \u2018control\u2019 of several organs of the UN\nis the experience of countries targeted by some of the Western countries &#8211; in\nparticular the USA \u2013 using the UN system as the instrument to \u2018punish\u2019 them. A very\ngood account is contained in How US Pressure Bends UN Agencies\u201d by Robert\nParry [see Consortiumnews.com, 16 October 2013]. Among the examples analyzed by\nhim are the following [in summary]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A key\nUN Agency which the US has targeted to control is the Organization for the\nProhibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] \u2013 important to the controversy of the\nalleged [unproven] use of Sarin gas by the Syrian government \u2013 thought by many\nto have been used instead by the rebels fighting to oust Assad to frame the\nSyrian government. Jose Bustani was ousted as Director-General in 2002 because\nhe was deemed to be an obstacle to the invasion of Iraq [See Parry, <em>op. cit.<\/em>]<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Mary\nRobinson, a former Prime Minister of Ireland, was prevented by the Bush\nadministration from being re-appointed as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights\ndue to her criticism of human rights abuses by Israel and the Bush\nadministration\u2019s war on terror\u201d, though officially she announced that she was\nretiring of her own accord.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nBush administration got rid of Robert Watson, the Chairman of the UN-Sponsored\nInter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, due to the pressure exerted on it\nby ExonMobil, whose Memo to the White House is referred to by Parry. The reason\nfor the ouster was the Panel\u2019s consensus that human activities such as burning\nfossil fuels contribute to global warming.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nObama administration engineered the appointment of a Japanese diplomat, Amano,\nto the leadership of the UN\u2019s international Atomic Energy Agency, which was a\nkey player in the dispute over Iran\u2019s nuclear programme. While Amano was\nportrayed as being independent-minded and resisting US-Israeli propaganda about\nIran\u2019s nuclear programme, this claim was shattered when, among the hundreds of\nthousands of pages of US diplomatic cables leaked by Private Bradley Manning,\nwere reports on Amano\u2019s secret collaboration with US and Israeli officials on\nthe subject. The cables exposing Amano were published in The Guardian newspaper\nin the UK in 2011. [See also Did Manning Help Avert War with Iran?\u201d in\nConsortiumnews.com].<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The\nattempts to distort the OPCW\u2019s Report on the alleged use of chemical weapons by\nSyria are detailed by Parry and cannot be summarized here. Obama\u2019s\nparticipation in this whole scheme against Iran is also analyzed by Parry.\nHowever, the following quote by an NGO cited by Parry is worth recording: As\none Western NGO put it\u2026.. \u2018If Assad really wanted to use Sarin gas, why for\nGod\u2019s sake did he wait for two years and then when the UN was actually on the\nground to investigate?\u2019  <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Another example particularly relevant to developing\ncountries is the United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC] and the United\nNations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances [UNWGEID]. The latter\ngroup has been admirably analyzed by Dr. Kamal Wickremasinghe in relation to\nSri Lanka in his article titled UNWGEID is Here to Gradually Get Us\u201d published\nin the Midweek Review of <em>The Island <\/em>newspaper\n[Sri Lanka] on 18 November 2015. While space does not permit a detailed\nanalysis of this article, it is useful to note his comment based on the lack of\nattention by people in Sri Lanka to what the Group is doing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Such indifference is the food that nourishes the\nglobal strategy of those seeking to rule the world using the UN as a cat\u2019s\npaw.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the above-mentioned organization, they\ncame across a secret detention facility within the Trincomalee naval base used\nduring Eelam War IV. This was described as a torture chamber. The former Chief\nAdmiral of the Navy, Wasantha Karannagoda, strongly rebutted this allegation\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[see <i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>The Island <\/i>[Sri Lanka} of 21<br \/>\nNovember 2015]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In regard to the allegations that the UN often does\nthe bidding of the USA, Christopher Black, a Lawyer specializing in\nInternational Law who has appeared for individuals brought before UN tribunals\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[such as on Rwanda]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>, in his presentation on \u2018The Criminalization of\nInternational Justice\u2019 at the Rhodes Forum 2014 on 26 September 2014\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=u8NHawXaOPc]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> exposed the criminal nature of UN\ntribunals set up at the behest of the US and its NATO allies to create their\nNew World Order through the revelation of the way in which these tribunals have\nconducted the inquiries. According to him these tribunals are propagandist in\nnature. Stories are circulated about targeted countries, demonizing regimes and\ncovering up the role of the US and its allies in their interventions. Many\nindividuals brought before these tribunals had been falsely accused. He says that\nit has been revealed that the US was responsible for what happened in Rwanda\nand that America\u2019s falsehoods were exposed at the trials. A respected Rwandan\nGeneral who had saved many Rwandan lives was arrested in 2000. Eleven years\nlater the trial judges concluded that the arrest had been illegal and\npolitically motivated because he had testified that the US and the UN forces\nhad been directly involved in the violence unleashed in that country.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Black has further revealed that these tribunals use\ncriminal methods against those the powerful countries want punished such as\nfirst throwing them in prison with no indictments shown or prior appearance\nbefore a court. Tribunals pressurize the accused to use lawyers either in their\npay or whom they could bend to their will to do their bidding, or those in the\npay of the West, and certainly not those deemed to be effective. Indictments\/charge sheets are often false and\npropagandist and often have parts blackened so that the defence lawyers cannot\nunderstand that whole charge. Documents and relevant disclosures are withheld\nfrom these lawyers. Prisoners suddenly disappear, isolation being a method used\nto exert psychological pressure on them. Lawyers are subject to harassment, intimidation,\nare followed, their hotel rooms are broken into and rumours are spread about\nthem to discourage their appearing for the accused. In 1997 Louise Arbor,\ninvestigating the killing of all passengers on board a Rwandan presidential\naeroplane when it was shot down, covered up the results when it was revealed\nthat it had not been the Hutu extremists but the Ugandan-RPF and US forces [the\nCIA was also implicated] who had shot down the plane. Arbor was thus an\naccomplice to a war crime and obstructed justice for which she was rewarded\nwith a number of lucrative positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In his presentation titled Non-Interventionism: The\nForgotten Doctrine\u201d also at the Rhodes Forum 2014 on 26 September 2014\n<\/p>\n\n\n<p>[rhodesforum.org\/politics\/540-non-interventionism-the-forgotten-doctrine]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> John\nLaughland, Director of Studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation\n[France], stated that a growing phenomenon in world politics in recent times is\nthat instances of regime change have been followed by criminal prosecutions of\nthe old regimes. This is dangerous as it destroys the concept of the national sovereignty\nof states. He mentioned that between 21 November 2013 and 22 February 2014 the\nInternational Criminal Court had been given jurisdiction in the Ukraine thus\nenabling it to prosecute the old regime for war crimes though there had been no\nwar at all under it, but not over the new regime installed by the US. Such\nirregularities were also seen in the NATO attack in 2011 of the Ivory Coast,\nthe ouster of Gaddafi, in the cases of Saddam Hussein and Milosovec and in\nRwanda. These examples illustrate the use of the punishment ethic\u201d which is\nnow the dominant characteristic of US and Western foreign policy. The idea of\nending impunity\u201d, with a state having the right to punish another even though\nthat other may not have attacked or harmed the first state, has been adopted. Many\nNGOs, lobby and pressure groups, governments and international organizations\nsuch as the UN and the EU considering themselves to be at the cutting edge of\nmodern politics, intervene in both internal and external affairs of states. This\nhas destroyed the concept of the sovereign equality of states. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The terms of the UN Charter have been totally\nperverted\u201d so that the organization is hardly recognizable today. The UN\nconsiders itself a supranational authority\u201d with the right and power to punish\nheads of states, resulting in it setting up, or helping to set up, tribunals to\ntry targeted countries and regimes. It has also asserted the right to get such\ncountries to abide by treaties they have not ratified\/signed which is a\nflagrant demonstration of how the punishment ethic is based on the concept of\nthe hierarchy of states which has deformed the international system. These are\nserious abuses and illustrates that the UN is not the solution but a part of\nthe problem, encouraging wars and interventions instead of preventing aggression.\nMost countries have come to believe that the UN is not impartial. There is also\nthe need to recognize, as Edward Gibbons realized, that a world power is a\nuniversal tyranny.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;Jurgen\nTodenhofer, a well-known German journalist and publicist, spent 10 days in the\nso-called IS caliphate in Mosul, Syria in December 2014. His impressions were\nrevealed in a CNN Programme called <em>Blindsided:\nHow ISIS Shook the World<\/em> on 20 November 2015 [in Sri Lanka]. [The interview\nis also available on www.independent.co.uk&gt;News&gt;World&gt;ME of 22 December 2014]. The following are\nhis key impressions of the ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The West underestimated the threat from ISIS. It was\nmore intelligent and dangerous than the West realized. It was much stronger and\nwas supported by an almost ecstatic enthusiasm\u201d. Each day 100s of new recruits\narrived from around the world. Within months ISIS had conquered an extent of\nterritory larger than Great Britain and dwarfed Al-Qaeda. Its fighters were\nspread so widely around Mosul that the West would have had to flatten the city\nto get at all its 5,000 members. With every bomb that is dropped and hits a\ncivilian, the number of terrorists increases.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The rapid increase of new fighters did not consist\nonly of young men who were failures in their own countries. There were many\nsuccessful professional and enthusiastic individuals from the UK, US, France,\nCanada, Germany, Trinidad, Sweden and Russia, some of whom were not Muslim\/Islamists.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>ISIS also aimed to carry out the largest religious cleansing in the history of mankind. It is\nnot only territorial conquest of the Middle East and other parts of the world that\nwould result, but also millions of deaths. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>In 2015 it appeared as if the ISIS could not be\ndefeated with bombs or missiles. Only the moderate Sunnis could stop ISIS as\nthey had done in 2007 when they chased ISIS [the \u2018IS in Iraq\u2019] away. But then\nthe movement was much weaker. The defeat of ISIS was difficult to achieve at\nthat time because the Americans and the Shiites in Iraq had excluded the Sunnis\nafter the 2003 invasion by the US. There were 3,500 US military intelligence\nofficers in Iraq at that time, but the Iraqi state was very weak. Although the\nUS had spent over USD 25 billion on training and arming the army it was useless\nagainst an IS assault \u2013 the army ran away. This was because Iraq\u2019s Prime\nMinister, Maliki had failed to heal the rift between the Sunnis and Shiites.\nIraqi Sunnis refused to fight against the IS because to them IS was the lesser\nof the two evils. They preferred it to the discrimination and oppression\nsuffered under the government of Prime Minister Maliki. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>ISIS became the largest threat to world peace since\nthe Cold War. The world had to pay the price for Bush\u2019s act of near un-paralleled\nfolly\u201d. The West hardly knew how to address this threat.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A main aim of the ISIS was to provoke the US to\nsend ground troops. ISIS especially liked Fox News in the US because it kept on\nurging for US troops on the ground in Syria [which was also what the Neocons\nagitated for].<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Graeme Wood has stated in What ISIS Really Wants\u201d\nin <em>The Atlantic <\/em>[March 2015] that the\nAmericans have not figured out the appeal that ISIS has.&nbsp; Unfortunately it is of significance and quite\ntelling that there were many people from various nationalities in the West,\nother than Islamists, who were attracted to this movement. It follows that if\nthere is no proper understanding of the ISIS, including the fact that it was almost\nenthusiastic about attacks from the West, strategic decisions against them\nwould be anything but strategic and would fail to solve the problem at hand. This\nis a sad commentary on American [and to an extent western] foreign policy and their\nlack of understanding of the strategies of the ISIS, resulting in faulty\nstrategies of their own<strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Any view that ISIS cannot be defeated by\nmilitary action such as air raids, bearing in mind that most countries are\nagainst the use of ground troops, required to be reviewed in the context of the\nevents that unfolded in November 2015 of Russian intervention. The Russians are\nbelieved to have been more effective in their air raids in a few days than the\nUS had been in the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally, who has been largely responsible for\ncreating terror groups in various countries in the latter half of the twentieth\ncentury and the early decades of the twenty-first century? The following\nsummary, at the risk of some repetition, seeks to answer this question. In\nessence these terror groups have been created by the United States and\/or its\nallies. In many instances they have created a power vacuum through one form of\nintervention or another, enabling terror groups to move in to fill the vacuum\n[See Bruce Fein, Washington Times 9 June 2015]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Israel gave birth to Hamas by\ncrippling the PLO and Arafat\u2019s dominant Fatah faction.<\/li><li>Hezbollah emerged from the\npower vacuum in Lebanon.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Al-Qaeda and Taliban moved into\nthe breach created in Afghanistan. The US armed the freedom fighters who, after\nthe ouster of the Russians, transformed into the Taliban.<\/li><li>After the ouster of Saddam\nHussein in Iraq in 2003 there was an unstable central&nbsp; government and strife amongst the Sunnis,\nShiites and Kurds. This enabled a splinter group of al-Qaeda to entrench itself\nin Iraq. Al-Qaeda was itself originally armed and trained by the US.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The power vacuum that was created in Syria as a\nresult of the Neo-cons urging the overthrow of President Assad, and the\ntraining and arming of Sunni rebels enabled the ISIS and al-Qaeda to establish\nthemselves and set up the Islamic State.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The Neo-cons\/US administration\nsupported the Islamic radicals in the overthrow and assassination of Gaddafi of\nLibya. Thereafter Islamic radicals plundered Gaddafi\u2019s huge conventional\narsenal. The power vacuum created by the US and their allies enabled ISIS to\nestablish a menacing foothold in Libya.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It is imperative that there should be a clear\nunderstanding of who helped ISIS to grow as it did. In this connection Ben\nSwann, a prize-winning journalist who heads the Truth in Media Project, has\npointed out that much of the US media has avoided and suppressed the facts in\nregard to this question. He has been seeking to make people in the US aware of\nthe answer to this question. [See https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/BenSwannRealityCheck\/videos\/882104321854519\/?fref=nf].\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Swann ISIS was\ncreated as a result of the conduct of the US Government in Iraq. Angela Keaton,\nthe founder of Antiwar.com believes that the ISIS is entirely the creation of\nthe United States\u2019 behavior in Iraq\u201d and that The US government completely\ndestabilized and wrecked Iraq\u2026.. caused it to fail miserably and that is\nentirely the fault of the US Government. There is no one else to blame.\u201d Daniel\nMcAdams of the Ron Paul Institute has stated that the media in the US will not\nmention that the impact of US actions in Iraq and Syria resulted in the\nemergence of the ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Swann has also pointed out\nthat ISIS was born in 2006 \u2013 a weak and small group of insurgents in Iraq which\ncould not gain a foothold there. In 2009 it shifted its focus to the Syrian\ncivil war. In June 2013 there was a pivotal moment when a Syrian General\nfighting against Assad, pleaded on television [al Jazeera] for weapons from the\ninternational community if the rebels were to be able to overthrow the regime\nof Assad. The US was already covertly providing arms through the CIA. In less\nthan one year, weapons given by the US and allies were found in the hands of\nthe ISIS because the Free Syrian Army [FSA] sent these weapons as well as\nrecruits to the ISIS. In June 2012 the ISIS emerged heavily armed and trained\nby the US and Coalition Special Forces in Iraq. When the US forces left Iraq,\nthey had left behind arms, vehicles and other equipment which were now in the\nhands of the ISIS, which the US knew would happen. The US media continues to suppress\nthe reason ISIS was able to grow and become powerful so fast, and that when the\nUS Government became aware of this, it did nothing although ISIS was becoming a\nthreat to world security and peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>How was it that the US with\nall its intelligence capabilities did not see the threat coming? Swann believes\nthat the US knew who and what ISIS was, but that the so-called Islamic State\nwas doing just what the US administration wanted it to do against the Syrian\nregime. However, by about 2015 the government acted like it had never heard of\nISIS and suddenly, with the help of the media, it turned the IS into the new\nfocus of the war on terror.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Around 2015 or earlier, Daniel\nMcAdams pointed out that the ISIS was earning over USD 2 million a day selling\noil [mostly to US\u2019 allies]. Bombing Syrian oilfields instead of stopping those\nbuying oil, made no sense. The response of the US to this was that by bombing\nthe oilfields, it was undercutting competition\u201d. McAdams pointed out that the\nUS is known to slap sanctions on anything that moves which annoys it, and\nqueried as to why no sanctions were imposed on either the banks or the oil\ncompanies involved in these transactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Swann also stated that\nAmericans should have been inquiring as to why the US was sending USD 500 million\nto the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS, when the FSA was one of the biggest\nsuppliers of fighters and weapons to the ISIS, and also why the US was sending\nthe FSA new and more powerful weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles, knowing\nthey would soon be in the hands of the ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>McAdams described the US as\na victim of its own insane policies because the US is very good at blowing\nthings up but really bad at putting them back together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Swann has pointed out that\n(a) the US armed both Bin Laden and the Muhajideen in Afghanistan \u2013 thus\ncreating al-Qaeda; (b) the US put Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq and helped\nsupply and create weapons for him to use against Iran in 1980 and then\noverthrew him in 2003; (c) the US government armed and trained rebel fighters\nin Syria who became the formidable ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Swann states: We have\nwatched them [ISIS] commit every violent atrocity you can imagine\u2026in Iraq and\nSyria, and now we want American taxpayers to fund a thirty-year war with them.\u201d\nLeon Panetta, the former Defense Secretary, told the magazine <em>USA Today <\/em>that he believes that to\ndefeat ISIS the US is looking at a thirty year war.\u201d Swann concluded that it\nwas not the US government but the American people who are being held hostage by\nthe policies of their government: It is time we reject the destruction of\npeople and groups around the world for the sake of foreign policy that makes so-called\ndefense contractors rich, and perpetuate violence, death, and the destruction\nof entire people groups. This is the central issue of our time because humanity\nis greater than politics.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>An Overall Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In conclusion, attention is drawn to the view\nexpressed by John Laughland that we live in a world in which any country can be\npunished for being an enemy even if that country has not harmed any other country.\nThe adoption of this punishment ethic means that the time would come when there\nwill not be a legal system known as International Law. Even national laws would\nincreasingly be subject to change through threats exerted by a powerful\ncountry, which has already happened in some states. Attempts have been made to\nreplicate this in Sri Lanka. If International Law and national laws are so\nundermined, the world may return to a sort of pre-historic state \u2013 a state of\nnature referred to by Hobbes which was described by him as being nasty,\nbrutish and short\u201d \u2013 in which the basic principle of survival would be\nobedience to one single power. That is why there is little that is worse than a\nunipolar world in which the Rule of Law, Supremacy of the Law, Natural Justice,\nJudicial Independence including at the international level, etc. would become\nutterly irrelevant and be destroyed by one or more countries. A part of\nEuropean civilization is founded on a 2500 year history during which the\nancient Greeks and Romans developed concepts which underline the\nabove-mentioned values. One can only hope this region will preserve those\nvalues, because they are being undermined by those who have no history or a\nsense of one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sriyan de Silva<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>08 October 2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sriyan de Silva Contents Defining CharacteristicsA Historical Perspective of the Neo-Conservative Movement\u00a0 and Its AgendaGlobal Impact of Neo-Conservatism and the Ravages of WarAn Overall Conclusion Defining Characteristics In discussing the Neo-Conservative movement [the adherents of which are commonly referred to as \u2018Neo-cons\u2019, which term will be used throughout this Paper to refer to them], it [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}