Globalists vie for control of U.S. foreign policy

Two global corporate rivals are in deadly contest

for control over foreign policy of U.S. presidency

By Professor Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research

04 January 2017 Global capitalism is by no means monolithic. What is at stake are fundamental rivalries within the U.S. establishment marked by the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency. In this regard,  Trump is not entirely in the pocket of the lobby groups. As a member of the establishment, he has his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his commitment to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow does not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors, which supported Clinton’s candidacy.

There are powerful corporate interests on both sides, which are now clashing. There are also overlapping allegiances and “cross-cutting alliances” within the corporate establishment.  What we are witnessing are  ”inter-capitalist rivalries” within the spheres of banking, oil and energy, the military industrial complex.

“The Deep State” is profoundly divided. These corporate rivalries are also characterized by strategic divisions and clashes within several agencies of the US State apparatus including the intelligence community and the military.  In this regard, the CIA is deeply embedded in the corporate media (CNN, NBC, NYT. WP, etc) which is waging a relentless smear campaign against  Trump and his alleged links to Moscow.

But there is also a  countervailing campaign within the intelligence community against the dominant Neocon faction. In this regard, the Trump team is contemplating a streamlining of the CIA (aka purges). According to a member of the Trump transition team (quoted by the Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017), “The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized, … They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.” This project could also affect CIA operatives responsible for propaganda embedded within the mainstream media. This will inevitably create profound divisions and conflicts within the US intelligence apparatus, which could potentially backlash on the Trump presidency.

Continuity in U.S. foreign policy?

Crafted in the late 1940s by US State Department official George F. Kennan, the “Truman Doctrine” sets the ideological foundations of America’s post-war hegemonic project.  What these State department documents reveal is continuity in US foreign policy  from “Containment” during the Cold War to today’s post 9/11 doctrine of “Pre-emptive Warfare”.

In this regard, the Neocons’ Project for the New American Century’s blueprint (cited above) for global conquest should be viewed as the culmination of a post-war agenda of military hegemony and global economic domination formulated by the State Department in 1948 at the outset of the Cold War.

Needless to say, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been involved in carrying out this hegemonic blueprint for global domination, which the Pentagon  calls the “Long War”.

In this regard, the Neocons have followed in the footsteps of  the “Truman Doctrine”. In the late 1940s, George F. Kennan called for building a dominant Anglo-American alliance based on “good relations between our country and [the] British Empire”.  In today’s world, this alliance largely characterizes the military axis between Washington and London, which plays a dominant role inside NATO to the detriment of Washington’s  (continental) European allies.  It also includes Canada and Australia as key strategic partners.

Of significance, Kennan underscored the importance of preventing the development of continental European powers (e.g. Germany, France, Italy) which could compete with the Anglo-American axis. The objective during the Cold War and its aftermath was to prevent Europe from establishing political as well as economic ties with Russia. In turn, NATO largely dominated by the U.S. has prevented both Germany and France from performing a strategic role in World affairs.

Trump foreign policy realignments

It is highly unlikely that a Trump administration would depart from the mainstay of U.S. foreign policy.

While the Trump team is committed to a socially regressive and racist right wing agenda on the domestic front, certain foreign policy realignments are possible including a softening of the sanctions against Russia, which could potentially have an impact on the multibillion dollar contracts of the military industrial complex. This in itself would be a significant achievement which could contribute to a period of Detente in East-West relations.

Moreover, while Trump has put together a right wing cabinet of generals, bankers and oil executives, which largely conforms to the mainstay of the Republican Party, the bi-partisan “entente cordiale” between Democrats and Republicans has been broken. Meanwhile, there are powerful  voices within the GOP who are supportive of the “anti-Trump faction”.

The divisions between these two competing factions are nonetheless significant. With regard to U.S. foreign policy, they largely pertain to U.S.-Russia bilateral relations which have been jeopardized by the Obama administration as well as to the ongoing U.S. military agenda in Syria and Iraq. They also have a bearing on the European Union, which has been affected by Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia.

The sanctions have resulted in a dramatic decline in EU trade and investment with the Russian Federation. In conformity with the “Truman Doctrine” discussed above, U.S. foreign policy under the Neocons, particularly since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had sought to dismantle the Franco-German alliance and weaken the European Union.

Of relevance in relation to recent developments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, George F. Kennan explicitly pointed in his 1948 State Department brief, to “a policy of containment of Germany, within Western Europe”. What Kennan’s observations suggest is that the U.S. should be  supportive of  a European Project only inasmuch as it supports U.S. hegemonic interests. And that is precisely what the Neocons have achieved under the Bush and Obama administrations:

“Today both Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel are taking their orders directly from Washington. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a turning point. The election of pro-U.S. political leaders (President Sarkozy in France and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany) was conducive to a weakening of national sovereignty, leading to the demise of the Franco-German alliance.” (Michel Chossudovsky America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. Global Research, 2014)

The more significant question is whether this realignment under a Trump administration will restrain the deployment of NATO troops and military hardware in Eastern Europe on Russia’s doorstep. Will it be conducive to nuclear disarmament?

While Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been the target of “dirty politics” by the Clinton faction, the new administration has powerful corporate backers who will no doubt challenge the Neocons including those operating within the intelligence community. It is worth noting that Trump also has the support of the pro-Israel lobby as well as Israeli intelligence. In December, the head of Mossad met up with the Trump team in Washington.

The timeline of the destabilization project

At the outset, prior to the November 8 elections, the project to disrupt and destabilize the Trump presidency consisted of several coordinated and interrelated processes some of which are ongoing while others have already been completed (or are no longer relevant):

• the media smear campaign against Trump, which has taken on a new slant in the wake of the November 8 elections (ongoing);
• the engineered anti-Trump protest movement across the US, coordinated with media coverage, petitions, with the objective to disrupt (ongoing);
• The vote recount in three swing states, (No longer relevant)
• The passing of  H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which includes a section directed against so-called “pro-Moscow independent media”, in response to Moscow’s alleged interference in the U.S. elections in support of Donald Trump;
• The Electoral College Vote on December 19 (No longer relevant)
• The Petition launched by California Sen Barbara Boxers on Change.org pertaining to the electoral College vote (No longer relevant)
• The ongoing “Disrupt” Campaign intent upon disrupting the January 20, 2017 Presidential Inauguration Ceremony.
• The possibility of an impeachment procedure is already contemplated during the first year of his mandate.
The Catch Phrase is “Disrupt”. The Objective is “Disrupt”

In turn, the Disruptj20.org website is calling for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:

 

Add new comment