(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



ACM: Rubio “they must be eliminated; they must be eradicated” [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-02-16

I am beginning to sense a theme in relation to US foreign policy under Trump, unfortunately it bears a resemblance to historical periods of unilateral American action around Manifest Destiny, the overthrow of elected regimes in Latin America and elsewhere, and the shoring up of dependable governments that serve perceived American interests. For all of Trump’s claim to end wars, we are seeing a situation where there may be an escalation of existing wars and the creation of new tensions.

I think that what we are witnessing is an attempted resurgence of US imperialism working as a unilateral power ignoring the pretence of shared authority in Europe as well as the pretence of human rights and international law. This is not new. We can see earlier versions of this when US Presidents protected their “allies” violating human rights and international law while ignoring the post-war consensus. We saw this in dictatorships installed by the US in Latin America who were routinely violating human rights law, as well as attacking governments whose politics were considered unsavoury. An obvious recent example is Biden’s enabling of Israel’s genocide, its attacks on Lebanon and its seizing part of Syria after the fall of Assad; in fact, it was sort of humorous watching Biden criticising human rights records of other countries while this was happening. So, this is the reassertion that the US and its allies are above international law and human rights law. Nothing new at all; but what is new is that Trump and cohorts seem to abandoning its coalition with European allies, who have been willing (and periodically complaining) allies of the US following the end of WWII.



The fact that this is happening at a time when US economic power is waning can be seen as an attempt to maintain and secure US military imperialist power. The threats against Panama, Canada and Greenland (btw, see HR 1161, calling for Trump to acquire Greenland and rename it Red, White and Blueland; even the colour Green makes these fools nervous, you cannot make this up!) are all part of this. What’s going on with Greenland is interesting, it is not only about the military base rented from the Danish government, it is not only about the resources there, there is also a consideration of the need for a trade route due to global warming which they don’t believe exists (wonderful contradictions).

The second major thing we are seeing is the abandonment of US “soft power”, the freezing of US Foreign Aid, leaving the World Health Organisation and the closure of USAID is not just a question of saving money, it has eliminated the US government’s pretence of winning “hearts and minds” as a part of US attempts at mitigation of the impact of its foreign policy. This in itself has implications and are again expressions of weakness rather than strength.



US Foreign policy Unilateral Imperialism

Some of these unilateral moves by the US undercutting European allies (and Canada) are a shift while some are just an extension of earlier US foreign policies. So there are 3 interrelated themes that I can see:



1) Abandoning the post-war consensus:



The abandonment of the idea of a coalition of western advanced countries under the control of the US against the forces of “evil” (Russia, China, Islam, whomever the enemy is at the moment). Viewing China as an inter-capitalist imperialism economic threat (which it is) to US domination is not new; it’s been quite a while since Nixon went to China and there is no question that it is the dominant economic threat while US capitalism is weakening. This is a definite shift from US foreign policy from the post-war (WWII) period.

2) Geopolitics again and its link to the post-war economic and political consensus in the advanced capitalist world



This point is linked to the one above; the US is retreating into geopolitical politics of allowing regional sub-imperialisms (e.g., Russia) to control areas in its vicinity which we saw before the collapse of the Soviet Union (even better as these are capitalist sub-imperialisms with nothing remotely socialist). These peace talks initially did not include Ukraine (thus providing more fodder for those that believe this is a proxy war and that Ukrainians have no agency, which includes some of the left unfortunately, who cannot see the similarity between the occupation of Ukraine by Russia and the occupation of Palestine by Israel). Trump has now allowed Ukraine a place at the “peace-talks” (which will rip the country apart) while telling Europe that it is not welcome at these same peace talks. This is what has now led to the discussions of the creation of a European military force due to the threat of Russia. Honestly, western Europe cannot afford it for many reasons and they certainly cannot afford the increased payment to NATO demanded by the Trump administration

The use of tariffs to undermine neoliberal and globalised trade agreements is a part of this strategy. It is the US unilaterally declaring that it will use its waning economic power against allies and trading partners whom it has agreements with (this is despite Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA in his last term).



This appears to be an attempt by Trump to bring industrial production back to the US without understanding (after all, he is a rentier capitalist) that driving prices higher due to tariffs (and which will strongly negatively impact the American working class among others as prices will rise around the world) will not guarantee that industrial capitalism will return to the US; industrial production requires capital investment and long-term planning – there were reasons that shifting it outside of the US was profitable for international capitalism, lower wage costs, closeness to raw materials and less capital investment being the most important. While the unions have been broken (which was an important goal), industrial capitalism is not a short-term investment, profitability requires a longer-term perspective and unless there aren’t elections in the future there are no guarantees that reinvestment in the US is a profitable one as it is very expensive. One of the problems we are seeing is the short-termism of investment which is driving financialisation and rentier capitalism; industrial capitalism is not short-termist by nature (it cannot be as production occurs over several periods). It is not the price of eggs (hello, avian flu) that is the consideration here; quite honestly, those working-class people that voted for him will not gain much (neither jobs nor cheaper prices; tariffs are passed to consumers, so there no relief there either). Whether these tariffs are simply negotiation tactics (you rub my back and I’ll rub yours; give me something or you will pay literally) mafia-style to deal with a problem or are actual attempts to weaken trade alliances between Europe and its other allies to gain some advantage (like increased industrial production in the US), this is threatening to upend Neoliberal trade agreements and capital mobility which have been the centrepieces of neoliberalism since the late 1970s.

As an understatement, European governments (and Canada) are not happy about US foreign-policy unilateralism, they are also not happy about tariffs being imposed on them; as this upends the international trading order and the cheapening of working-class consumption goods through international trade which enabled them to lower wages as goods were cheaper than being produced domestically. The Europeans were even less happy with JD Vance telling them that they are undemocratic by treating right-wing populists as a danger in Europe (one wonders if he has ever heard of WWII). There are real reasons for concern of both European mainstream politicians (and the left) of a rising AfD in Germany along with the election of the far-right in Italy, Netherlands, Austria, and Hungary, etc and increasing votes for far-right populists in France, Britain, and Spain, etc. Clearly, given his politics the shift to the far-right is a positive; that he does not see the far-right as undemocratic (as that would include him and he thinks he is very democratic), this gives more of an insight into the US far-right than they may have wanted.



This is a shift away from the post-war alliance (and cold-war alliance) of the US and Western Europe against the threat of the left (they think we are defeated) and “communism” and is an attempt to continue the far-right destablisation in Europe. The insistence that European governments have to increase defense spending (both as members of NATO and the fact that they will need to deal with the threat of Russian foreign aggression) in a period when welfare spending (along with welfare states) has collapsed as part of neoliberalism (the economic policy of conservatives, liberals and “social democrats”) and these governments are facing internal far-right threats, one cannot help thinking that this is part of Trump’s attempt to strengthen the far-right in Europe. At this point, I cannot see these governments increasing spending on health, education and welfare which is desperately needed; this will only strengthen the far-right (who have no interest in doing this either). Moreover, they are increasing political repression against dissent especially against the far-left and democratic forces and climate activists. This will inevitably lead to a stronger far-right, the left (and I am not talking about Dems, Socialist Parties, etc) is weak and divided and while it is growing, the far-right is growing faster.



In many senses, capitalism in the advanced capitalist world is stagnant and crisis ridden due to neoliberalism; this has enabled the creation of a far-right – the unions are weakened due to privatisation, the destruction of wage and working contracts and this is set to continue. This is fertiliser for the far-right to grow and the hard-left is probably too weak and divided … we can expect further attacks on workers’ movements and movements of the oppressed both from the far-right as well as from the centre (right and left). Add to this, there is the danger of further destruction of the planet due to continuing use of fossil fuels and the refusal to actually coherently fight climate change.

3) The Middle East



Finally, and, as an indicator of what a unilateral US foreign policy leads to, we can watch the US shoring up its alliance with its colonial settler state (Israel) and threatening Lebanon, Syria and Iran. There is nothing new here, much of this is a removal of the pretence of concern for human rights than anything else and a payment to Israel for serving US foreign policy interests in the region.

There will not be much to constrain the Israeli government and military from Trump’s government as their interest coincide; the elimination of Palestinians (a long-held dream of the Israeli right and Christian Zionists as it hastens the return of Jesus) means no competing claims to the area. It codifies Israeli political and military control over the area and it also endears Trump to Evangelical Christian Zionists who maintain that the area belongs to the Jews by right. According to this view, the Jews being in the holy land will bring back Jesus and the battle of Armageddon will be fought by Jews who can then win their way into Christian heaven because they are the army of Jesus and that is how they will achieve salvation. These bizarre beliefs are based in antisemitism (not the philo-Judaism they claim; I am honestly hard-pressed to find shared Judeo-Christian values or a system of beliefs) and that is what drives this Christian Evangelical Zionist ideological agenda.



What needs to be clear in people’s minds is the role of Israel for the US; it is the US that controls that relationship (and it can easily eliminate it by defunding Israel and stopping weapons) and the Israeli government and military serve American interests. These interests coincide often and when they don’t Israel will be told no. That they are not being told “no” is important and this is where the attacks on Lebanon, Syria and Iran by the Israeli government and military are important as the US does not like the instability posed by Lebanon, Syria and Iran and this government does not feel constrained by international law, international humanitarian law and human rights and that is incredibly dangerous to the people of these countries as they are not seen as independent actors, merely numbers of irrelevant things, that are a threat to the perceived needs of the US and its stability.



The title of this piece comes from yesterday’s joint press conference (transcript in link) of Marco Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu where Rubio called for the elimination and eradication of Hamas (and Hezbollah and raised the danger of the instability in Syria and the danger of Iran). It was quite the performance. Netanyahu praised Israel’s best friend, the US, and the US made it quite clear that it was advocating the removal of Palestinians from the areas that it considers inherent parts of Israel; in both houses of the US Congress, there are bills to rename the West Bank Judea and Samaria which arerecognised as belonging to the people of Israel “by right” (justified by some biblical nonsense).

What we are seeing is nothing less than US advocacy of the final ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank; this is also clearly eliminating the fantasy of a 2-state solution … where will it be as everything will be under the control of Israel? Thereby bringing

full circle the Nakba of Palestinians begun with the division of Palestine and the 1948 attack on Palestinians by the Israeli military and their resulting diaspora along with permanent refugee status.

The only thing preventing Trump’s plan of the removal of Palestinian from Gaza (with no right of return of course) and turning it into the “riviera” of the Middle East under US control is that Jordan and Egypt (and for that matter, other political rulers in the region) have refused to take in more Palestinian refugees and to participate in the complete destruction of the Palestinian people. This is not because they care about the fate of Palestinians necessarily, but rather because the populations they rule over will object strongly and this may lead to the end of their political control. Not even the Saudis will be able to do this. We are awaiting an Arab-led response to Trump’s “riviera of the Middle East suggestion” (Trump claims to welcome alternative proposals). But note that the Israeli government will pay nothing towards the reconstruction of Gaza and despite charges of Genocide and war crimes against Israeli political leaders and its military, it is doubtful that they will be held accountable (they have not been previously). Of course, part of this press conference was a criticism of the ICJ and ICC as overstepping and politicising their power (yes, of course, Netanyahu has repeatedly said these organisations are antisemitic as the reason for the accusation of genocide and war crimes, rather than the reality of genocide and war crimes).



Moreover, as was also clear, the US government is acknowledging the sovereignty of the West Bank under Israeli control. As the Israeli government and military extends it attack on Palestinians from Gaza (they are still withholding foodand necessary goods from Gaza as well as continuing to bomb the population) to the West Bank. Termed Operation “Iron Wall”, together with support from the Palestine Authority, a land and air attack was launched on Jenin, Tulkarem and Nablus (and the refugee camps nearby); this has led to the displacement of 40,000 people from 4 Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to erase anything that can be called Palestine. There is nothing to suggest that this is opposed by either the US Congress or the Executive branch of the US government. In fact, we are seeing the opposite.

As mentioned above, in yesterday’s Press Conference, Rubio referred to the danger posed by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the weakness of its government; the only way to eliminate Hezbollah (and Amal) which are political parties as well as militias (this is a general problem in Lebanon as there are militias that belong to other sectarian groups) is to eliminate the Shi’a Muslims in Lebanon. Much of Lebanon’s problems relate to the sectarian nature of the constitution and its government. Will the US and Israel attempt to create a military solution to the problems of Lebanon?



Rubio also raised the instability in Syria following the overthrow of Assad which he described as now having another unstable leader. We must support the right of Syrians to decide their future, Israel has already abrogated the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria following the overthrow of overthrow of Assad in December 2024 and has already seized more land from Syria while destroying the Syrian navy and military capabilities. Clearly the current US government thinks that further military activity by Israel is warranted and does not want the Syrian people to determine their own future.



Finally, the press conference would not be complete without the mention of Iran and its danger to the region and its supposed development of nuclear weapons. This brings an additional dimension to an already dangerous situation; Netanyahu has wanted to destroy the “nuclear military threat” of Iran for a while and a Trump government may allow what other governments have refused to condone … a military strike on the nuclear weapons programme. The consequences of their bombing nuclear energy reactors will not only be catastrophic for Iran, but for the whole region which is why no US government has given Israel the right to do this previously.

The abandonment of “Soft Power”

The US has left the World Health Organisation (again), it has again pulled out of the UNRWA (which is still the largest supplier of relief and support to Palestinians; this is less of a surprise as Biden had already done this and it is unclear whether he reinstated funds to UNRWA, several European countries did reinstate funds). Trump actually froze foreign aid under his so-called America First programme. These agencies and foreign aid budget are part of what is called “soft power”.

USAID (along with PL 480, later known as Food for Peace Act) which provided food initially – often competing with domestic food production and food sovereignty as in Haiti, and more recently provided funds for the purchase of food. USAID picked up some of the emergency food provision) served an important role as part of the cold war as well as a way to win support of other countries (and their populations) receiving aid, that the US is not a “bad guy” – look it is providing medical support, aid and food assistance to the capitalist periphery.

However, undermining food sovereignty means the creation of dependency for capitalist peripheral economies) leaving them more vulnerable to international crises, famines, droughts (which are becoming more relevant due to climate change); as such, movements advocating food sovereignty were directly responding to this dependency as well as attempting to redress the issues of food poverty.



An important point here that is relevant is that along with globalisation and Neoliberalism (which includes the use of the World Bank to force privatisation of water provision, electricity, raw material extraction and protection and the creation of free trade zones (which enabled not only the avoidance of taxation of multinational corps, but the removal of profits from these countries), meant increased dependency not only related to food, but the demands of foreign producers. So, while import-substitution policies of the 1950s-80s in Latin America, Africa, and India attempted to reduce foreign control over production and foreign imports replacing them with domestically produced goods (agricultural and industrial). Neoliberalism initially was enacted in Latin America (see Chile under Pinochet and the role of Milton Friedman) undermined these policies completely. If we look at Egypt under Nasser, we can see food sovereignty as a priority; the introduction of neoliberalism under Sadat shifted agricultural production towards foreign sale and foreign demand for agricultural products rather than domestic needs.



Both USAID and the Food for Peace Act were attempts to project the US as a concerned friend of the most disadvantaged countries. The fact that these countries were disadvantaged due to their role in the world capitalist system and the needs of the advanced capitalist countries was a “don’t look behind the curtain” … a pretence with which desperate people (and their governments) were happy to maintain. These were tied into covering US hegemony and the potential danger of populations shifting leftward and supporting politicians whose interests were inimical to US perceived interests. The manner and rapidity in which USAID was dismantled left not only those working (and their families) for USAID in the lurch, but also the projects they were working on which were abandoned rather than wound down which is how projects are normally terminated. This leaves populations dependent on medical care and other projects essentially abandoned.



Trump and Musk’s destruction of USAID brings to an end the “soft-power” model of US foreign policy. Even if they reinstate the funding for USAID (now under control of the State Department), there has been some serious damage (and that is not only reputational) that has been done in places where USAID was active. The thing about “soft-power” is that provides results for people living in the capitalist periphery; at the same time, it also has negative impacts as both populations and governments resent the demands of the World Bank and the IMF to get financial assistance; said requirement have actually destablised those governments as well as directly impoverishing the populations of those countries.



It will be quite interesting to see what will come out of this. With the end of these programs and continuing political and economic instability, how will the US respond? This will certainly weaken the US internationally, China uses both economic development (with the sharing of technology) and foreign-direct investment and has already been working very diligently in the capitalist peripheries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.





What can we do?

In the face of all of this, what can we do? Well, there are a number of people that are going to need solidarity; we must continue to support Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrian people to determine their own futures. We must recognise that Ukrainians have political agency and that the Russia/Ukraine war is not a proxy war by the US. We must ensure that Ukrainians have a say in there future. support international solidarity! This would need to be done anyway irrespective of Trump being in office. If we support the right of self-determination and agency of people, we need to stand with them.



The most important thing that we can do domestically is to build solidarity by fighting together in grassroots struggles of all types; we need to protect each other. We are all in danger from the far-right, but some people are being targeted and we must stand together to protect each other. Marginalised people especially (racialised people (e.g., Black Americans, Latinx people, Asian Americans), women, gay and trans people, and disabled people) always are the primary victims of a shift to the right and an attack on the welfare state, we must stand together and build support and solidarity locally. Unfortunately, we cannot depend on the Dems to help honestly; we will need to organise locally and at a grassroots level – the Dems cannot save us. The Dems have a habit of undermining genuine struggles (think of Black Lives Matter) and offering tiny reforms in the hope if destroying movements. We will need to save each other. Building solidarity on the ground takes time, but unless we do this, unless we end the use of divide and rule, we will not be able to protect each other and we certainly will not be able to impact the rise of fascism.



This can be done locally in grassroots movements to strengthen our communities, this can develop democratic procedures to support each other (this is broad, we can fight to protect our rights, we can fight by fighting to ensure our families and communities have access to food and clean drinking water, we can stand together to build something bigger for all of us). We can be fight statewide as well; ballot measures are useful (but are becoming harder to win due to politicians making winning ballot measures more difficult), we can also fight against policies that are impacting people, but these fights are always stronger when we come together as a group. There will be national campaigns that can be fought as well; reproductive justice and preserving basic civil rights are just examples.



We need to recognise that electoral battles go from campaign to campaign, if there is someone worth fighting for, do so. But we must continue the fight between electoral campaigns, our struggle must not be limited to electoral campaigns. The problems of democracy arising from first past the post political systems will not disappear; politicians are constrained by the leaders of their parties who often do not share our needs (as an understatement) which is why we must go beyond the lesser of two evils that have been served up time and time again. That is also why we must build protection for each other in our communities and stand in solidarity.



[END]
---
[1] Url: https://dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/16/2304177/-ACM-Rubio-they-must-be-eliminated-they-must-be-eradicated?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.