US moral principles vs its interest-driven tactics

In 1776 a new nation was created. Its avant-garde principles then were embodied in the declaration of independence. They emanated from the intellectual universal concepts of the brewing Enlightenment in the old continent then.

“All men are created equal (..) with certain inalienable rights,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government.”

These initial principles were further reinforced by a Bill of Rights in 1789; in which ten amendments set out basic rights for every US citizen; including freedom of speech, assembly and religion, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These principles and ideals provided a unique compass for the US.

In his farewell address, First President George Washington (1789-1997) warned against the peril of foreign entanglements:

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all (..) Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur (..).

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils (..) It leads to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others (..) And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.”

The principles encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the leader’s beliefs buoyed the US for two centuries. They made America a beacon for others.

In the Middle East, these principles were clearly demonstrated in 1956, when President Eisenhower, stopped British, French and Israeli aggression on Egypt, possibly indicating the last vestiges of the Euro-Colonial era.

Eisenhower’s Warning: The principles upon which the United States was established permeated past political elites.

Before leaving office in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a clear warning in his farewell address, regarding the impending evolution of American politics:

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Poignant words, because Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater in World War II, oversaw the defeat of Fascist Nazi Germany. Fascism is defined as the convergence of political and economic power (integration of economic and political elites). Forced labour (Slaves) in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany provided an inhumane avenue for German companies to cut their cost.

Having sensed the rise and political impact of corporate interests in the US, particularly of “defense” companies, Eisenhower publicly warned of the inevitable rise and influence of the “military industrial complex.” Eisenhower also called for safeguarding American principles; notably freedom, “…from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius of our scientists.”

Evolving Economic Hypocrisy:

In 1776, the fledgling US was perhaps the wealthiest natural nation state. Based on Adam Smith’s theory of economic comparative advantage (The Wealth of Nations – 1776).

This theory stipulates that a nation’s wealth is intimately and directly connected to the amount and quality of its natural resources. This concept was a primary driver for colonialism, where European nations bolstered their own economic prosperity by exploiting the natural resources of other countries and peoples in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East.

In the 1980s, Harvard Professor Michael Porter coined a new economic theory; the Competitive Economic Advantage described how countries with limited natural resources could generate improving living standards. It is ultimately based on the innovation and creativity of a population; exactly what Eisenhower had highlighted two decades before the theory became in vogue.

Asia Tigers

Creativity and innovation are not a natural monopoly. Countries like China and India have recently struck creative and innovative prowess.

In 2019, China surpassed the US in terms of international patent filings.

In 2023, China rose as a global leader in 37 out of 44 key technologies, indicating a relative decline in the US dominance.

Under Bill Clinton (1993-2001), America embarked on an economic transformative path favoring services over industry.

As such, it lost its industrial competitiveness - with the exception of its robust military industry. The US greenback, however, remained the Globe’s reserve currency.

Since competitive economic dominance has been in decline, the US has been seeking to secure its interests and develop comparative economic dominance through the control of strategic resources.

In 1999, Clinton passed an act equating between companies and citizens in contributing to political campaigns. This removed previous limitations on corporate political contributions and enabled wealthy corporations to direct financial contributions towards political representatives who best served their corporate interests.

Ultimately this has led to the convergence of economic and political power (also called fascism).

Flagrant Aggression

The desire to control comparative global economic resources was stated by US presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a previous supreme commander of NATO. In September 2003, two years after 9-11 mayhem, Clark boasted that Washington was concocting coups in seven countries over five years; Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Lebanon and Sudan.

Cherchez the black gold

This oil rich zone tops US interests abroad. In hindsight, the US has been successful in Iraq, and Libya and somewhat successful in Sudan, and Syria where they control the oil/gas producing areas. Iran, Somalia and Lebanon are in process.

Controlling energy can undermine the prosperity of competitive economies. The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline between Russia and Germany in September 2022 harmed Germany’s industrial base as well as potential economic cooperation and integration between Germany and Russia. In the last century, German-Russian economic integration has always been a threat to countries such as Britain as it integrates comparative (Russian) and competitive (German) economic advantages.

This threat is now felt by an economically declining US, as it seeks means to maintain or prolong its global dominance.

What does this mean?

The US has fallen victim to its own success. At the end of the Cold War, it came out as the sole victor. Armed with its principles and its economic ability could have led the world to a peaceful, cooperative and competitive future. But the convergence of corporate economic interests and political power (fascism) turned the US from a long-term principle-driven superpower into a short-term interest-driven.

This transformation has led to the decline of its global clout; as most allies can no longer trust the principles upon which decisions are made. It manipulates strategic resources (such as Nord Stream gas) to control the growth and prosperity of corporations in competing economies; allies and foes alike.

This transformation puts at risk the collective economic prosperity of the citizens of nations “allied” to the US such as Germany and most of western Europe.

On the other front, its opponents/enemies witness an increasingly tactical set of political and economic interventions which secure short-term benefit for specific US based corporations and their shareholders while sacrificing the long-term interests of this country at a global level.

The recent sequential financial support of Ukraine against Russia and Israel against the Palestinians indicate the influence of the military industrial complex on political decision making.

The United States is increasingly going into debt to fund US based military foreign assistance to prevent economic integration between Russia and Europe and to maintain Israel as a hegemon and US proxy in the energy rich Middle East.

This interest-based set of interventions does not economically or politically bode well, in the medium to long term, for a once principle-based US. Its interests are prone to being incrementally corroded as global players establish alternative means of economic and political cooperation and integration.

This is the typical fate of all empires.

Former Royal Court Chief and Former Head of the Jordanian Diplomacy