I. Political Hegemony—Throwing Its Weight Around
“From its 61-year hostility toward and blockade of Cuba to its overthrow of the Allende government of Chile, U.S. policy on [Latin America] has been built on one maxim-those who submit will prosper; those who resist shall perish.”
The first aspect of US hegemony is the ruthless exercise of political hegemony—the usage of various schemes, tactics, and other underhanded games in order to trample on the sovereignty of foreign nations and instead enforce its own will upon people throughout the world; all cynically carried out in the name of “promoting democracy and human rights.”
Beginning with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the US government set out on a program of imperialist domination: first of Latin America, and then of the world. Specific color revolutions and other programs of political interference in the sovereignty of foreign nations mentioned here include:
The ongoing illegal blockade against Cuba, designed specifically to harm the Cuban people, destabilize the government, and lead to an anti-communist counter-revolution. Despite numerous attempts to overthrow the Cuban government, including over a hundred attempts to assassinate President Fidel Castro, and the historic farce at the Bay of Pigs, the Republic of Cuba has held firm and maintained its sovereignty, albeit at a great price and requiring immense sacrifices by the brave people of the island nation.
The brutal fascist coup d’etat against Chilean President Salvador Allende on 11 September 1973. Allende had instituted popular reforms aimed at creating greater equality and democracy for the people of Chile, including the nationalizing of key industries—thus earning him the ire of the US government. The US-backed fascist Pinochet dictatorship would last until 1990: during which time economic deals would benefit US economic interests at the expense of thousands of tortured, kidnapped, and murdered Chilean people, the exact number of whom remains unknown.
The overthrow of Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos sr., a friend to US foreign policy interests as a brutal anti-communist willing to support the US in exchange for benefits to his own self-interest and populism; he would be pushed out of power with the urging of the US as the depths of depravity and corruption became a sore-spot for the Reagan administration. Decades later, Joseph Estrada would likewise be targeted in similar fashion.
Beginning around 2003, a strategy of “Neo-Monroe Doctrine” took shape, with the unleashing of influence campaigns and color revolutions both in Latin America and around the world, notably:
The “Arab Spring” throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—famously sparking the civil war in Libya which NATO then used in order to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, gave birth to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the overturning of the government of Egypt, and delivered further shockwaves throughout the MENA region.
The “Rose Revolution” in Georgia—which was famously shot through in its entirety by European and US-aligned interests, primarily exercised through NGOs, seeking to establish a base for their own interests on Russia’s southern border.
The “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan—following in kind, involved personnel directly involved in both the Georgian and Ukrainian color revolutions, as well as direct involvement by the US embassy, seeking to establish a more US-friendly government in the strategic Central Asian region, bordering China.
And many more examples of color revolutions, with the US playing a central role in orchestrating them all, and US meddling, exist from the same period—including Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Hong Kong, and more—so it is worth noting which ones the MFA did specifically mention. The paper likewise notes that former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo published a new book in January of this year, in which he explicitly stated that the US government had planned interventions against the government of Venezuela, specifically targeting the 2018 elections, and even, as John Bolton revealed, attempting a coup d’etat.
The paper then elaborates on the general diplomatic failures and double standards of the US government in its relations with the international community and law:
2017 cessation of funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA focuses heavily on women’s and girls’ issues, as well as reproductive care and AIDs awareness. While clearly biased in favor of the interests forwarded by the US itself, the US nevertheless withdrew funding, baselessly claiming that the program was undertaking “coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." As Americans at home are increasingly being persecuted for seeking abortion care, and allegations surface of forced sterilization and other gendered violence at migrant camps on the US-Mexico border, it begs the question as to what the US really hoped it would accomplish.
Withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1984 and then again in 2017. UNESCO specifically aims to promote international peace and concord through the promotion of education, arts, science, and culture; it is most famous for its World Heritage Sites program, which recognizes and seeks to protect man-made structures and natural areas deemed to be of irreplaceable value to the whole of humanity—there are 24 such sites in the US, including the Statue of Liberty.
2017 withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords. The PCA is a simple agreement establishing only that the all nations would seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent ecological collapse brought on from man-made climate change; as the highest-polluting country on earth, the US bears a particular responsibility to reduce emissions—the US military alone stands as one of the largest polluters in human history, before even factoring in the rest of the country.
2018 withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council. With a limited number of seats on the council being allocated in staggered three-year terms—only seven seats for the “Western Europe & Other Countries” category, which includes the US—the decision to withdraw from the council prematurely in 2018 brought an early end to the US turn on the council, and would not come again until 2022. The US withdrawal highlights just how cynical any sloganeering about human rights by the US truly is.
2019 withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—a Cold War-era treaty signed by Ronald Reagan aimed at ending the arms race between the US and USSR which threatened to plunge the world into nuclear apocalypse; the US official rationale for suspending the treaty was to begin rearming in order to counter what it believed to be a Chinese arms buildup. China was never a party to the treaty, but, subsequently, Russia also withdrew from the treaty.
2020 withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies—originally ratified in 1992, the treaty was designed to thaw global tensions by explicitly allowing for unarmed aerial observation of participating nations in order to assess troop movements, gauge a nation’s preparations for war, etc. Following the US withdrawal, Russia likewise withdrew; some 32 countries remain parties to the treaty.
These agreements range from human rights, to climate change, to nuclear non-proliferation and general military de-escalation—some of the most important areas of shared interest for the whole of the human species today; but the US, when not given what it wants, simply walks away. This is not the behavior of a civilized nation, nor the policy one would expect from a nation expecting to be taken seriously on the global stage—let alone viewed as a leader of great influence.
The paper then highlights the general obstructionism present in US diplomatic activities within the international community:
“opposing negotiations on a verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and impeding international verification of countries' activities relating to biological weapons. As the only country in possession of a chemical weapons stockpile, the United States has repeatedly delayed the destruction of chemical weapons and remained reluctant in fulfilling its obligations. It has become the biggest obstacle to realizing ‘a world free of chemical weapons.’”
According to the Arms Control Association, as of 2022 the US still possesses 646.7 tons of chemical agents and munitions; as per international agreements, they should all be destroyed, yet the US appears to be apprehensive about giving up these weapons of mass destruction despite simultaneously attacking others—most famously Iraq and Syria—over alleged chemical weapons possession and usage. This same US mentality extends into all areas of international diplomacy.
Despite repeated claims of foreign nations aligning to attack the US, such as the make-belief “axis of evil” dreamed up by the Bush administration, the US actively seeks to form small blocs by which to enforce its will throughout the world, such as the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” in east Asia, forcing smaller and unaligned countries to choose sides—sowing division and stoking confrontation, undermining peace and stability for no reason other than the extension of US hegemony. While the vast majority of Asian countries have rejected this approach, US puppets in Korea and Japan have increasingly been pulled in, exacerbating tensions in the region whereas previously relations had been on a positive trajectory; as well as stoking the separatist dreams of the would-be renegade province of Taiwan, currently occupied by the “Republic of China.” Despite the overwhelming majority refusing to take part in such games, the US has succeeded in creating division, and even pulling in Australia as an accomplice to stoking tensions in the region.
As part of its campaign of division, the US unilaterally declares other countries “democratic” or “authoritarian” based solely on whether or not they conform to US interests, creating “a false narrative of ‘democracy versus authoritarianism’ to incite estrangement, division, rivalry and confrontation.” The MFA here highlights the failed “Summit for Democracy'' held in 2021, which was roundly criticized as a cynical ploy for expanding the US’ faux “democracy'' narrative at the expense of anyone not willing to submit to US hegemony; another such summit is scheduled to take place at the end of this month, co-hosted by the US with the governments of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, southern Korea, and Zambia—all of which are marred with unaccounted for histories of human rights violations that go unanswered for.