(Written by Abu Raja Haider)
Natchez is adamant that in the science of international relations, one who does not fully understand the distinction between the US role in global and regional politics and its (US) domestic politics cannot be recognized as a "World Peace and Security Scholar." It also confirms that in world and regional politics, countries around the world are as concerned about the US election results as they are about the world and regional peace, as much as they are concerned about the world and regional peace. , Especially concerned with their own safety.
Readers, consider that the final and logical outcome of the 40-year world war was the overthrow of the Soviet empire and the domination of Russian teens in the world. The second major consequence of this was the golden opportunity in American history for him (Washington) to become the only acceptable leader in the world. "Acceptable" here means that which is recognized by the governments of the world and the world community as superior to the mind and heart and the real non-controversial and lonely (worldly, political) power. For this, the United States had to take off its "American" lens and prove itself a fully responsible and just world power. Its basic requirement was that, with the cooperation and cooperation of its living and active allies in each region, it removes obstacles to the full implementation of the UN Charter and the implementation of the decisions of this world body. Thus, the long-standing permanent threats to the world and regional peace today would have turned into peace and tranquility and would have become a source of true enlightenment for humanity, making the world a real cradle of peace and tranquility. Now, in today's smoldering world, all this seems like a dream, but the one that was shattered in spite of all the opportunities for interpretation.
Extensive research will prove the hypothesis that the United States lost a great and certain opportunity for world peace and security at a time when the collapse of the Soviet Union was a great opportunity for the United States and the world. In contrast, the American Republican rulers and their leading think tanks, in contrast to the "world peace thinking", were dominated by American conquest and making America the ruler of the world. It was a reflection of the classical thinking of the American Republicans. There is no doubt that by adopting the same approach, the Republican Reagan administration won a landslide victory over Jimmy Carter and came to power. Focused aggressively to end the aggression, with Pakistan becoming its first active and tadam victorious partner. Earlier, taking advantage of the Democrats' defunct Carter administration's policy of "non-interference," the Iranian revolutionaries succeeded in bringing about an Islamic revolution in Iran, the most important American ally in the Middle East.
In the follow-up, the pro-American Binti Dawood government of Afghanistan was overthrown and the "Thor Revolution" of the Afghan communists was launched there. American influence had sunk into the Persian Gulf. The entire staff of the American embassy in Tehran was being held hostage by the revolutionaries and fulfilling their conditions with the United States. There were even analyses that if the Carter administration had not ended the traditional American policy towards Iran, the Shah of Iran's resistance would have been against the revolutionaries and the sooner and more American influence was removed from the region, it would not have happened. That's the shape. To a large extent, the Reagan administration downplayed all this in making possible the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as achieving a great victory in overthrowing the Soviet Union.
In the post-Cold War period, the drunken thieves derailed the American Republicans and, contrary to the requirements of world peace and security and favorable conditions, fell into the trap of celebrating and running their own world order (New World Order). The Islamic world, which became an active partner of the United States in the large-scale jihad in Afghanistan, went on a path of misguided policy and unacceptable decision-making by making some of its anti-government groups a major threat to itself or politically. ۔ Thus, instead of making itself as acceptable as possible, the United States began to make itself controversial. So many times the European Union's disgust was clearly seen by the world as "then it broke up".
By constantly putting pressure on the most effective and proven defense partner like Pakistan, it made itself suspicious, yet it became a nuclear power contrary to US policy. Afghanistan has suffered a great deal by entangling itself for a long time. Nothing happened. As confusing as it is now, safe evacuation has become the US target. The legitimate influence that the United States has had and continues to have in Afghanistan is proving impossible. What did the United States gain from the "misinformation" of the weapons of mass destruction that the Republican Bush administration killed millions of people in Iraq and wreaked havoc in the country? What effect did all this have on the people of the Middle East and the Muslim world? The approach was taken by US Republicans, especially Democrats, on the UN dispute over Palestine and Kashmir is a challenge for the US think tanks to audit its findings and first reform themselves to guide future US governments.
Do All of these American games of the world and regional politics, which divided the United States in such a way and with such intensity (to a deadly extent), all came before the world in the 20th election. Earlier, a sit-in by millions of poor Americans at the US Treasury Center opened the floodgates of America's deteriorating public economic status in the form of the "Aco Pie Wall Street Movement". Is the United States pursuing global "peace and security" in its "national interests" by simply deploying powerful naval forces in the open sea and with controversial military allies such as India and war-torn allies like Japan? Can leave the world and do something better for yourself by continuing the mission of achieving? Finding the right answer to this big question, then, according to policy and decision making, has become a major challenge for the Democratic Biden administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment