Albert Jay Nock warned us early in the 20th century in his essay entitled The Value of Useless Knowledge published in 1934 that memorizing minutiae prioritizes history as volumes of trivia. Rather, we should extract the necessary wisdom from studying details insofar as it enables our identifying patterns of power elites using false pretexts (usually laced in morally embellished terms) to justify its engaging in all parts of the world. These false pretexts can certainly vanish down the infamous "Memory Hole", being exiled forever as a subject from our public discourse. Our applying Nock's logic here though creates no fear that forgetting historical episodes will inflict harm upon us. We should resist beliefs that stress becoming vast repositories of historical details. That only feeds the false sense of superiority of pedants. Instead, regardless of the volume of details presented to us, we should focus more on seeking clarification of first principles, resulting in our asking power elites, for example, "If we bomb Cambodia in 1970 to disrupt communists operations there, what effect will such bombing have on the Cambodian people?.....Will that create a power vacuum, and, if so, who will fill it?" We didn't ask those questions, or, if we did, we concluded they weren't important. Of course we know who and what filled that vacuum. Extensive knowledge of Cambodia could be important in many scenarios, but it is not necessary when seeking clarification of first principles when debating the moral justification for bombing that nation. Power elites' statements and actions today involve their using softened rhetoric to smooth over the rough edges of their imperial ambitions. Nock understood this and so should we.
America's imperial elite see history as superfluous not because, as Nock believes, that identifying patterns precludes the need to memorize copious dates and names, but their empire project possesses sufficient omnipotence to transcend history. Yes, in their eyes, history has ended. Its easy to dismiss Fukuyama as a neo-Hegelian crank after living through events like 9-11 and the Great Recession. He may be patently wrong, but the empires' operatives today work constantly to prove he is right.
At the beginning of the 20th century, some Chinese rebels launched their Boxer Rebellion to reduce their being a colony of Western empires. The Western empires quickly defeated the Boxers, resulting in those empires dividing China into "spheres of influence."
Fast forward a century later to see operatives of the Western empire declare Asia as its geopolitical domain. Hence, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declares the 21st century to be "America's Asian Century" and shortly thereafter U.S. President Obama announces his foreign policy includes a grand move, an "Asian Pivot."
Secretary Clinton cautions against heeding those simple-minded isolationists who eschew the benevolence of the U.S. empire:
"With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided.........For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these 'come home' debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again." [1].
Clinton here states a fallacy by stating a false alternative. She patronizes critics of the current size, shape, and substance of U.S. involvement in China as childlike whose criticism are just impulses. She neglects to consider critics may favor continued engagement China that occurs on different terms and conditions. She must resort to a mixture of platitudes and dismissing potential critics as simpletons in order to ignore the last century of U.S. aggressively asserting its interests while attempting to limit China's pursuing theirs.
Some reflexive Americans believe China is an inherent enemy, justifying U.S. taking measures to offset China's influence anywhere. Clinton, though, does not share this view. Instead, she believes that both America and China can mutually prosper:
"We all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific. Some in our country see China's progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China's growth. We reject both those views. The fact is that a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America." [2].
She should measure the implied meaning of her platitudes against the reality of America's actions taken in the previous few years to neutralize China. She won't do that so we should.
U.S. actions taken especially in the last two decades show deliberate attempts to block China from gaining more robust access to oil in Africa. For example, as Keith Harmon Snow states:
The U.S. moral pretext for increased involvement in Africa, particularly Sudan, is fighting terrorism and preventing genocidal wars and atrocities. So many dynamics ebb and flow that defy concluding a morally pure narrative for understanding the continued conflicts in the Sudan and, as of 2011, South Sudan. But, the complex geopolitical chessboard shouldn't discourage our examining all of the facts.
The U.S. supported groups opposing the Omar al-Bashir regime in Khartoum. These groups demonstrate no better credentials for promoting democracy,human rights, and preventing atrocities. One group is the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) who were trained at the U.S. Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia, and were led by John Garang led the SPLA until until his death in 2005. [5]. Moreover, the specific nature of U.S. involvement in other organizations in various African nations suggests their objective is prolonged destablization:
If noble intentions motivated U.S. support of Garang and the SPLA whose actions demonstrated another episode of "blowback," the U.S. showed moral indifference at the very minimum on November 29, 1999 when President Clinton "signed a bill directly funding" them. [8]. This funding was according to the language of the bill earmarked for food to Garang's army. This seems harmless enough except the U.S. provided more than just food to Garang's army:
And, equally important, the U.S. focuses its operations in the South Sudan where most of current oil reserves are located in what was greater Sudan prior to the South's 2011 secession. (See Graph for the distribution oil concentrated in South Sudan http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=su).
China established itself early this century as the largest importer of these oil reserves. As of 2013, China is the final destination of 86% of oil exported from both Sudan and South Sudan. [10]. Yet, since the South's secession from Sudan proper in 2011, its oil exports have declined significantly, thereby reducing China's imports. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that: "For the first half of 2014, oil production in both Sudan and South Sudan averaged 260,000 barrels per day, down from 490,000 barrels per day in 2010." [11]. Is this just a coincidence that is only consequential enough to energize the hyper-kinetic crowd donning the tin-foil hats?
What about the erudite analysts at Booz-Hamilton who stated in their report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield that China seeks through its diplomatic and military measures to secure and exploit lucrative energy resources as their "string of pearls?" (report of summary published in the Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/17/20050117-115550-1929r/) This "string" refers to pathways through which energy supplies will be transported between the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea. If the U.S. develops strategies and tactics to limit China's gaining more global power resulting from its exploiting the lucrative energy resources within its "string of pearls," why wouldn't the U.S. pursue measures that disrupt China's extracting energy resources from South Sudan?
Prior to South Sudan gaining its independence as a sovereign nation, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), one of the most well known and established rebel groups opposed to the Sudanese government, attacked the Greater Nile Petroleum Company (of which the China National Petroleum Corporation owns 40%) operating in Defra, Kordofan in October 2007. [12]. In addition, JEM has executed a string of kidnappings and other attacks on Chinese oilfields in the Kordofan area. [13]. Meanwhile, many western media outlets ignore whether the U.S. conceives its foreign policy in Central Africa pursuant to its objective of controlling access to natural resources. Instead, they present U.S. policy in that region as a humanitarian crusade waged to "Save Darfur."
"Save Darfur" served as the rallying cry and call to action. What part of "Save Darfur" motivated the U.S. providing billions of dollars of aid for weapons to groups opposing Khartoum while, for instance, over 99% of South Sudan lacks access to electrical grids to power their homes? (statistics showing electrical usage in South Sudan available at http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Sudan/sudan.pdf) Instead, they use coal to heat their homes. Its easy to conclude that genocides and tribal wars prevent development of vital infrastructure. The degree of U.S. support of groups equally culpable of the genocides and destabilization weakens that causal claim. This ignoring of basic needs of that 99% shouldn't surprise anyone given the fact that the U.S. political economy shows a determined deference to its 1%. Consequently, the policy shift identified as the "Asian Pivot" is misnamed. Rather, its the U.S. converging its domestic and foreign policies, showing its disregard of the 99%.
Nock's "Useless Knowledge" if applied to this discussion shows another example that actions taken in service of grand crusades are often rhetorical flourishes that are nonetheless articulated so forcefully that they condition our acceptance of more "humanitarian interventions." How long will China indulge the U.S. rhetoric that their involvement occurs strictly to combat "terrorism" and "genocide?" Perhaps China will review these geopolitical conditions and thus glean the "useless knowledge" from their remembering being partitioned following the Boxer Rebellion or their becoming more colonized resulting from the Opium Wars?. One day the U.S "Asian Pivot" will likely become "useless knowledge" that only seems useful to cynics who question a future empire masquerading as benevolent. May more cynics prevail.
1. Hillary Clinton. "America's Pacific Century: The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action. Foreign Policy. October 11, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century
Sudan is China's fourth biggest supplier of imported oil, and U.S. companies controlling the pipelines in Chad and Uganda seek to displace China through the U.S. military alliance with 'frontline' states hostile to Sudan: Uganda, Chad, and Ethiopia. [3].These military alliances with Sudan's neighbors conflict with Secretary Clinton's claims that the U.S. "Pacific Century" gains moral credence by being the "only power with a network of strong alliances in the region, no territorial ambitions and a long record of providing for the common good." [4]. Do these alliances serve both China's and U.S. mutual interests? Of course this geopolitical maneuvering serves their respective corporate and military industrial complexes. But, who else benefits? This simple question should guide our evaluating the motivations of U.S. actions undertaken in areas that are economically vital to China. Thus, U.S. maneuvering and China's investments in Sudan and South Sudan deserves special attention.
The U.S. moral pretext for increased involvement in Africa, particularly Sudan, is fighting terrorism and preventing genocidal wars and atrocities. So many dynamics ebb and flow that defy concluding a morally pure narrative for understanding the continued conflicts in the Sudan and, as of 2011, South Sudan. But, the complex geopolitical chessboard shouldn't discourage our examining all of the facts.
The U.S. supported groups opposing the Omar al-Bashir regime in Khartoum. These groups demonstrate no better credentials for promoting democracy,human rights, and preventing atrocities. One group is the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) who were trained at the U.S. Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia, and were led by John Garang led the SPLA until until his death in 2005. [5]. Moreover, the specific nature of U.S. involvement in other organizations in various African nations suggests their objective is prolonged destablization:
The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has for Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, in effect every country on Sudan’s border. Much of the arms that have fueled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the notorious former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout. Bout has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US Government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering. US development aid for all Sub-Sahara Africa including Chad, has been cut sharply in recent years while its military aid has risen. Oil and the scramble for strategic raw materials is the clear reason. The region of southern Sudan from the Upper Nile to the borders of Chad is rich in oil. Washington knew that long before the Sudanese government. [6].Does U.S. training and supporting groups operating in all the nations surrounding Sudan constitute a democratic-enhancing encirclement? Maybe, but what viable democratic institutions developed from U.S. supporting such movements? To the degree that democratization has occurred in South Sudan, how did John Garang facilitate this "democratization?" Narratives that demonize only Omar al-Bashir and his regime in Khartoum serve as propaganda when analyses ignore other atrocities. For example:
In southern Sudan the war that John Garang provoked and fought killed more people than the Rwandan ‘genocide’ but more slowly. Since 1983, most of the two million confirmed casualties died from starvation. The regional population was displaced. As peace was made in the South under pressure from the international community, a new war began to open in the West of Sudan (February 2003), Darfur. [7].
If noble intentions motivated U.S. support of Garang and the SPLA whose actions demonstrated another episode of "blowback," the U.S. showed moral indifference at the very minimum on November 29, 1999 when President Clinton "signed a bill directly funding" them. [8]. This funding was according to the language of the bill earmarked for food to Garang's army. This seems harmless enough except the U.S. provided more than just food to Garang's army:
An Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) team probing the causes behind the genocidal wars that have been ravaging East and Central Africa over the last four years, has uncovered a covert arms and logistical supply network run out of the U.S. State Department..[9]
And, equally important, the U.S. focuses its operations in the South Sudan where most of current oil reserves are located in what was greater Sudan prior to the South's 2011 secession. (See Graph for the distribution oil concentrated in South Sudan http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=su).
China established itself early this century as the largest importer of these oil reserves. As of 2013, China is the final destination of 86% of oil exported from both Sudan and South Sudan. [10]. Yet, since the South's secession from Sudan proper in 2011, its oil exports have declined significantly, thereby reducing China's imports. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that: "For the first half of 2014, oil production in both Sudan and South Sudan averaged 260,000 barrels per day, down from 490,000 barrels per day in 2010." [11]. Is this just a coincidence that is only consequential enough to energize the hyper-kinetic crowd donning the tin-foil hats?
What about the erudite analysts at Booz-Hamilton who stated in their report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield that China seeks through its diplomatic and military measures to secure and exploit lucrative energy resources as their "string of pearls?" (report of summary published in the Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/17/20050117-115550-1929r/) This "string" refers to pathways through which energy supplies will be transported between the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea. If the U.S. develops strategies and tactics to limit China's gaining more global power resulting from its exploiting the lucrative energy resources within its "string of pearls," why wouldn't the U.S. pursue measures that disrupt China's extracting energy resources from South Sudan?
Prior to South Sudan gaining its independence as a sovereign nation, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), one of the most well known and established rebel groups opposed to the Sudanese government, attacked the Greater Nile Petroleum Company (of which the China National Petroleum Corporation owns 40%) operating in Defra, Kordofan in October 2007. [12]. In addition, JEM has executed a string of kidnappings and other attacks on Chinese oilfields in the Kordofan area. [13]. Meanwhile, many western media outlets ignore whether the U.S. conceives its foreign policy in Central Africa pursuant to its objective of controlling access to natural resources. Instead, they present U.S. policy in that region as a humanitarian crusade waged to "Save Darfur."
"Save Darfur" served as the rallying cry and call to action. What part of "Save Darfur" motivated the U.S. providing billions of dollars of aid for weapons to groups opposing Khartoum while, for instance, over 99% of South Sudan lacks access to electrical grids to power their homes? (statistics showing electrical usage in South Sudan available at http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Sudan/sudan.pdf) Instead, they use coal to heat their homes. Its easy to conclude that genocides and tribal wars prevent development of vital infrastructure. The degree of U.S. support of groups equally culpable of the genocides and destabilization weakens that causal claim. This ignoring of basic needs of that 99% shouldn't surprise anyone given the fact that the U.S. political economy shows a determined deference to its 1%. Consequently, the policy shift identified as the "Asian Pivot" is misnamed. Rather, its the U.S. converging its domestic and foreign policies, showing its disregard of the 99%.
Nock's "Useless Knowledge" if applied to this discussion shows another example that actions taken in service of grand crusades are often rhetorical flourishes that are nonetheless articulated so forcefully that they condition our acceptance of more "humanitarian interventions." How long will China indulge the U.S. rhetoric that their involvement occurs strictly to combat "terrorism" and "genocide?" Perhaps China will review these geopolitical conditions and thus glean the "useless knowledge" from their remembering being partitioned following the Boxer Rebellion or their becoming more colonized resulting from the Opium Wars?. One day the U.S "Asian Pivot" will likely become "useless knowledge" that only seems useful to cynics who question a future empire masquerading as benevolent. May more cynics prevail.
1. Hillary Clinton. "America's Pacific Century: The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action. Foreign Policy. October 11, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century
2. Ibid.
3. Keith Harmon Snow. "Darfurism, Uganda & U.S. War In Africa: The Spectre of Continental Genocide." 14 Nov 2007. http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-233DARFURISM%20UGANDA%20AND%20US%20WAR%20IN%20AFRICA%20[10].htm p.22 of article.
3. Keith Harmon Snow. "Darfurism, Uganda & U.S. War In Africa: The Spectre of Continental Genocide." 14 Nov 2007. http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-233DARFURISM%20UGANDA%20AND%20US%20WAR%20IN%20AFRICA%20[10].htm p.22 of article.
4. Clinton. "America's Pacific Century."
5. F. William Engdahl. "China and USA in New Cold War Over Africa's Oil Riches." May 20, 2007. http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-and-usa-in-new-cold-war-over-africa-s-oil-riches/5714
6. Ibid.
7. John Bart Gerald. "Tactical Use of Genocide in Sudan and the Five Lakes Region." Feb 17, 2006. Global Research. http://www.globalresearch.ca/tactical-use-of-genocide-in-sudan-and-the-five-lakes-region/1994
8. Ibid.
9. David W. Lutz. "The Ethics of American Military Policy in Africa." http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Lutz00.html accessed December 04, 2014.
***for more in depth information about the claims referenced within this specific citation, see the entire article from which this particular claim was sourced: An EIR Investigative Team, “Rice Caught in Iran-Contra-Style Capers in Africa,” Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 25, No. 46, 20 November 1998, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/rice_2546.html
10. "Country Analysis Brief: Sudan and South Sudan." published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. September 3, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Sudan/sudan.pdf
11. Ibid.
12. Refugee Review Tributnal Australia. RRT Research Response. Research Response Number SDN 34868. Country: Sudan. Date: 11 May 2009. http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/country/australian_refugee_review_tribunal/sudan/attacks%20on%20oil%20fields.pdf
13. [Ibid].
5. F. William Engdahl. "China and USA in New Cold War Over Africa's Oil Riches." May 20, 2007. http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-and-usa-in-new-cold-war-over-africa-s-oil-riches/5714
6. Ibid.
7. John Bart Gerald. "Tactical Use of Genocide in Sudan and the Five Lakes Region." Feb 17, 2006. Global Research. http://www.globalresearch.ca/tactical-use-of-genocide-in-sudan-and-the-five-lakes-region/1994
8. Ibid.
9. David W. Lutz. "The Ethics of American Military Policy in Africa." http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Lutz00.html accessed December 04, 2014.
***for more in depth information about the claims referenced within this specific citation, see the entire article from which this particular claim was sourced: An EIR Investigative Team, “Rice Caught in Iran-Contra-Style Capers in Africa,” Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 25, No. 46, 20 November 1998, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/rice_2546.html
10. "Country Analysis Brief: Sudan and South Sudan." published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. September 3, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Sudan/sudan.pdf
11. Ibid.
12. Refugee Review Tributnal Australia. RRT Research Response. Research Response Number SDN 34868. Country: Sudan. Date: 11 May 2009. http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/country/australian_refugee_review_tribunal/sudan/attacks%20on%20oil%20fields.pdf
13. [Ibid].
No comments:
Post a Comment