- Postado em
Letter from Lhasa, number 333. Lying and indecision are not particularly fruitful in international r
Letter from Lhasa, number 333. Lying and indecision are not particularly fruitful in international relations
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi
Lying and indecision do not seem particularly fruitful in international relations, although they be constantly practised. Of course, people, bureaucrats and Statesmen have a different point of view and perception.
Bureaucrats and Statesmen are usually ashamed about what they really do. Since that, they prefer to lie systematically. They lie to themselves, for what they can. They lie to people.
For implementing policies, they order assassinations and massacres. They charge them over other people or entities. They exploit these covert crimes for triggering other and broader crimes. They call that “national interest”, which they tell they are pursuing. Done successfully that, they exalt themselves as heroes.
People are educated and conditioned their whole life according to Pavlovian conditioned reflexes. Finally, consensus politics (not policies, politics as winning election and preserving popular sympathy and support) is only advertising technique applied to this specific field. It is not culture, education, rationality, explanation, discussion. Using advertising techniques, consensus politics exploits people conditioned reflexes.
Oligarchies decide policies. Politicians gain and preserve popular consensus by clientelism and by sounding lies. That is what is called ‘democracy’. People must be bought. People have to perceive that they have some material advantage. Realized that, people need to convince themselves that they are good, very good, the best.
Function of propaganda is “making sense”. People must be convinced that what is done, or what will be done, has a sense and, possibly, that there is no other possible choice. Politicians and Statesmen are part of the propaganda machine for their own interest: for being re-elected or, anyway, for being popular.
Also a President at his second mandate wants to be and remain popular. He will earn more, after his presidential mandate, when he will be hired as a lecturer, speaker, consultant or whatever.
You are popular. People like you. The oligarchies you have variously favoured, wasting taxpayers’ money, when you were in office, will easily and more often call you, and will pay you more, even, for instance, $750’000 when they call you for an address or a speech. On the contrary, if you are unpopular, they’ll perhaps use that as an excuse for rewarding you less for you past services.
The Syria affair is a banal question of a gas pipeline, and also a way for striking an Iran historically guilty of not liking to be robbed of its high quality hydrocarbons. The pipeline which the USA-UK, the Arab countries, Turkey and Israel do not want is the gas pipeline Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-EU. It interferes with Arab projects, and also with the gas discoveries in the Israeli and Cypriot area, and their projected gas pipeline Israel-Cyprus-Continental Europe.
Might anyone imagine Statesmen declaring they are funding, arming and managing terrorists because they want to destroy a Syria not submitted to their plans and now, specifically, obstructing the Arab gas pipeline projects?
About this gas pipeline case, the USA-UK have a double interests. Since their idiosyncrasies and robbing interests, they need to contain Iran. Since Arab countries and Israel are key parties of the USA-UK world terrorist machine, they need to support their accomplices.
In the current events, what is apparently astonishing is the Russia position. USSR/Russia is historically dependent from Western technologies and investments. Even its military industries are strongly dependent from them.
Russia has the same interest of the Syria’s aggressors in obstructing the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-EU gas pipeline. Conflicting with them, it has the additional interest to avoid whatever other competition in the sector of the natural gas pipelines towards the EU. Russia is trying to preserve its eastern monopoly or quasi-monopoly, relatively to the gas supplies to the EU.
That, together with some China (another country ultra-dependent from Western technology and investments), and Germany-EU, interest to obstruct the plans of the Syria’s aggressors, does not explain the Russia apparently decided position supporting Syria’s integrity. It is true that Russia historically has an ‘Islamic’ question and Arab countries are, even now, supporting ‘Islamic’ terrorism against Russia. However, also adding this element, that does not seem sufficient to explain the apparently firm Russian position.
What Russia is now doing is in part a bluff. In other part, it can only be explained with US and British fractions and interests are conditioning Russia, a historical Western puppet (also during the USSR era), to act in this way. War is always a complex game masking other interests.
The Russian military-industrial complex has interest to show Russian inferiority for getting more public funds. The US military-industrial complex needs more funds, which can be done only if there is some apparent enemy. This was already the game of the so called cold war. In addition, a real war in the area would be a very good business for both military-industrial complexes. Industrialists and financiers prosper over destructions.
Coming back to the lying question, precisely because they constantly lie, Statesmen are frequently uncertain when they take action. Not always it is so. In history, there is a variety of circumstances and there are different ways of using lies, although lies always reflect a moral inferiority of Statesmen. The Statesman lies because he feels inferior if openly claiming his goals and because he has contempt of his subjects he judges incapable to face the truth and to deal with it.
A modern and contemporary State is so vast, and so bureaucratized and impersonal, that it is radically different from a tribe consciously going to war for its interests. At the same time, when claiming the subjects’ duty of patriotism, this impersonal State pretends to be perceived as a primitive tribe where cohesions is indispensable.
The only ones always profiting, also from undecided Statesmen, are the military-industrial complexes, because conflicts and wars are finally longer and more destructive.
Syria is intrinsically weak, since its multinational structure and its Alawite minority government. It finally would be more economical, cheaper and easier, just to dissolve and take over Syria by some decided assaults.
It would have been even easier to do nothing, and to cooperate to modernise and develop it. The same might be told about Iran and, frequently, about whatever other ‘enemy’.
However, the Empires are what they are and how they are. No, now they’ll go on ‘frying’ Syria and its people by long lasting deaths and destructions. It is what they did and are doing with Iraq, firstly used from the USA-UK against Iran and, nearly in parallel, ‘fried’ by embargos and low intensity bombardments, until when they decided its military occupation. Now, occupied, it is devastated by a US&British- and Arab-sponsored Sunni terrorism because its Shiite majority is a natural ally of Iran.