Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
One striking feature of this is that the west (uncapitalised) is defined in pretty narrow security and military terms. It sounds like a purely defensive construct against outside threats. Nothing about values, nothing about democracy, nothing about being an exemple for the rest of the world, or a leader in setting up new standards of behavior - this is batten-the-hatches be-ready-for-battle-against the evil-oppressors rhetoric - the west in under siege.
The 'values' are 'neoliberal'. I.e. these narrow 'security' and 'military' terms are 'security' for the purpose of global Capital. Remember, greed has been elevated to an ethical principle, and the 'security' we need is the one that allows unfettered greed on behalf of Capital, 'security' to ensure that no measure other than 'GDP growth' can be considered a figure of merit. I assume that a lot of the punch of the article in terms of the assumed primacy of US interests, with the UK as a given follower, is that these two 'nations' can be relied upon to understand this inevitable trajectory of Capital and the indisputable goodness of its demands for infinite right to greed, 'growth' and 'profits'. The people in service of 'markets', not 'markets' in service of the people. France is still seen as sometimes trying to assert other, conflicting, metrics of progress. It is therefore more of a prize in this quest for 'security' than the UK could ever be.
Why on earth would they have to explicitly state these 'neoliberal' values? They are after all indisputable and inevitable!
Corollary - Atlanticism is implacably hostile to genuine democracy.
Not that we didn't know that already, but it's worth spelling it out.
As for "the legitimate interests of the people of the United States", yes I do think those could exist. But if those interests extend to other nations, in particular to how those other nations trade and allow access to their natural resources, 'markets' and labour pool, then, I cannot agree that those interests would be 'legitimate'. I.e. if the people of the United States where to explicitly demand and favour foreign policy to exact control over the middle east for the purpose of filling the tanks of those godforsaken SUVs, then, no, that is not a 'legitimate' interest of the people of the United States. If the people of the United States where to explicitly demand and favour foreign policy to limit the rights of workers and human rights in foreign lands so that their box-stores might continue to be filled with cheap goods from sweatshop labour, then that too would not be a 'legitimate' interest. etc. etc. etc.
And every day Americans (and Europeans, we are not blameless, oh no. 'Westerners', we can really write here!!) do demand such foreign policy. Perhaps not explicitly, but certainly implicitly, though their continued worship of another shiny piece of convenience crap. As long as ones economic interests are so closely aligned with an exploitative relationship to foreign labour, than any amount of hand-wringing about those poor people of whatever country, and their lack of human rights, and a decent standard of living, and reasonable labour conditions, is just that. So much hand-wringing, and nothing else! Some pity to make ourselves feel good about ourselves. "Yes! We are good people! Wanting good for everyone. No one should be hurt! And cheap goods and services too, please!!"
Remember, greed has been elevated to an ethical principle, and the 'security' we need is the one that allows unfettered greed on behalf of Capital, 'security' to ensure that no measure other than 'GDP growth' can be considered a figure of merit.
