pmperspectives@aol.com
Pull quote: ‘Paragraph 21 of the Belgrade Declaration pointed to the asymmetry in economic development in the developing world, a product of colonialism and imperialism, and the necessity of reducing the gap in standards of living through stepped-up economic, industrial, and agricultural development between the developing and developed worlds’
AMERICA ALWAYS seems to thrive on having an enemy; or to put it another way, America always seems to want a war. Wolfe pointed out that from 1789 to the start of World War II, U.S. troops occupied foreign countries 145 times without authorization from Congress. And the U.S. intervened in 70 countries between 1945 and the late 1990s.
According to Gore Vidal, America initiated 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and September 11, 2001. And to round off the extent of America’s global militarism, there were 737 U.S. military bases in overseas nations in 2005.
Nonetheless, not much good has come about as a result of America’s military interference, both clandestine and open, in other countries’ affairs.

In fact, Chalmers Johnson indicated that since 1947, America’s overseas political maneuverings did not produce any democratic government; and in some notable scenarios, democracy was born in some overseas countries because of the resistance of those countries to America’s interference in their affairs.

Here are some of Johnson’s examples of the outcomes of overseas resistance to American militarism: The disintegration of the CIA-installed Greek colonels in 1974; the fall of the U.S.-aligned fascist dictatorships in Portugal in 1974, and Spain in 1975; the collapse of Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship in the Philippines in 1986; the downfall of General Chun Doo-Hwan in South Korea in 1987; the termination of martial law in Taiwan in 1987; reflect, too, on America’s installation and support of such dictators as the Shah of Iran, General Suharto of Indonesia, Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Mobutu in Congo/Zaire, and those in South Vietnam and Cambodia.

And, indeed, today, we have the Afghan war, in its 104th month, the longest running American war, and, indeed, the American war in Iraq. Then there is the direct American support for Israeli callousness to sustain the siege of Gaza and Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. And now we come to the recently-employed U.N. sanctions against Iran on the future of its nuclear programme. You would recall that Iran was one of President George W. Bush’s axes of evil; nonetheless, Iran has come full circle, if you reflect on the U.S. installation of the dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1953 in a coup against Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq.

And so, what have we got here? These aforementioned points suggest, in Johnson’s vernacular, that America constantly seeks global dominance, and it sees this as its natural right. This U.S. international modus operandi could work toward destroying America from within, especially if you think about the costs of war and the security budget of maintaining 737 military bases around the world, given the recent international financial meltdown and the current unusually high unemployment rate. Nevertheless, in light of the U.S’ perpetual strategy of global dominance, what are the options for the developing world?

Perhaps, we need to reexamine the non-aligned movement phenomenon in the developing world as a method to have a re-negotiated engagement with U.S. global dominance, and the imperialist outcomes of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). The Non-Aligned Movement was born at the Heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries in Belgrade in September 1961. Paragraph 21 of the Belgrade Declaration pointed to the asymmetry in economic development in the developing world, a product of colonialism and imperialism, and the necessity of reducing the gap in standards of living through stepped-up economic, industrial, and agricultural development between the developing and developed worlds.

The success, if you can call it that, of the non-aligned movement was in the area of economics, and not so much in politics and security matters, Professor Kumar noted. The movement did aggressively push the economic agenda, as there was greater consensus. The Cairo Summit of 1964 presented the foundation for a New International Economic Order (NIEO); the Algiers Summit of 1973 demanded the establishment of the NIEO; and the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted in 1974 the Declaration and Programme of Action of the NIEO; the Colombo Summit in 1976 launched significant initiatives on international economic relations; and the Havana Summit presented initiatives to develop policy guidelines on collective self-reliance in the developing world.

Nonetheless, with some success in economics, the end of the Cold War in 1989 pretty much destroyed the spirit of non-alignment; even so, it may be timely for the developing world to reexamine the non-alignment phenomenon, or something akin to it. The alternative is to surrender to the diktat of U.S. global dominance.

Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com; themisirpost.wordpress.com