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.
