Bidens UNGA Speech Does Not Absolve the U.S. of Violence by Ms Ramona Wadi!
(2021-09-28 at 22:17:10 )

Bidens UNGA Speech Does Not Absolve the U.S. of Violence by Ms Ramona Wadi!

How has the United States changed, when it is still advocating for violence and determining which countries are worthy of U.S. support, based upon subservience to imperialism?

United States President Joe Bidens speech made a big deal of portraying his administration as different from that of his predecessor. But apart from rejoining and engaging with United Nations institutions, there is little to account for a change in United States foreign policy. Running contradictory statements, particularly around the U.S. terror narrative and military violence, is not the way to convince an audience, particularly countries which have been targeted by U.S. intervention.

Bidens speech attempted to portray the United States in a new light, away from its bloody legacy of supporting coups and intervention. The humanitarian approach to Covid19 is one tactic which Biden utilized to assert a departure from the Donald Trump Administration, as was the environmental card played in the speech.

However, the United States has not altered its policies and much less its tactics. Democracy as designated by powerful countries allows leaders to monopolise the narrative, but its implementation will always be far from the rhetoric.

"We will stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation," President Biden claimed. If you ask Palestine and Cuba, a different picture emerges.

President Bides mention of the two-state compromise contradicts his assertion that the United States will oppose domination - the defunct hypothesis due to Israeli colonization of Palestinian territory makes a Palestinian state impossible. Not to mention the military aid bequeathed to Israel by the United States annually, while Palestinians are cloistered into the humanitarian paradigm and their political rights permanently dismissed.

On Cuba, President Biden was not particularly vocal, drawing criticism from Miami, where the recent protests on the island were eagerly followed and with isolated requests for United States military intervention. Cuba was briefly mentioned alongside Belarus, Burma, Syria and Venezuela to sustain the narrative that the protests in Cuba were fueled by democratic aspirations, rather than orchestrated United States involvement.

Cubas Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez succinctly described Joe Bidens approach. "President Bidens administration is making a serious mistake, with consequences for all, in its effort to split the world between those who submit to it and those who defend their sovereign right to self-determination with dignity," he stated.

President Biden has not prioritized Cuba on the United States foreign policy agenda, and certainly is not following in Barack Obamas footsteps, when rapprochement between the two countries was a possibility following the release of the Cuban Five. However, the greatest mistake in analyzing Bidens approach was to equate the lack of visibility in terms of diplomatic engagement with Cuba to non-involvement.

As it became clear that Joe Biden would not reverse the Donald Trump Administrations policies, it was evident that the U.S. would utilize the groundwork laid by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The refusal to remove Cuba from the United States list of state sponsors of terrorism allowed the Biden administration to extend the decades-long policy of "bringing democracy" to the island, as well as substantiate the refusal to lift the illegal blockade on the island, which the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly declared to be in violation of international law.

President Biden also affirmed the U.S. allegiance to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which stipulates that an attack on one NATO member state constitutes an attack on all member states, and which was instrumental in influencing global approval for the U.S. "War on Terror". For all the declarations that the U.S. has evolved since September 2001, its agenda remains the same.

So how has the United States changed, when it is still advocating for violence and determining which countries are worthy of U.S. support, based upon subservience to imperialism?

Covert action does not indicate a change in foreign policy, only in the way it is administered.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.