America and Negotiations: Strong in the Macro, Weak in the Micro

Is America capable of forcing people to act against their interests? Here is the answer:

Yes, America is a superpower, fortified by blood and slaughter, having established a rigid capitalist clique that weaved its fabric through a formidable military and economic machine. Since Europeans discovered the rifle, they have been able to invade other civilizations, diminishing their cultural and demographic presence. They displaced the indigenous populations, altered the demographics, and settled there—by the way, this is what the Arabs in the Sudanese diaspora are attempting to do in this poor war-torn country.

Later, the Americans manufactured the atomic bomb, ideas and secrets of which seeped to them from defeated Germany. With this bomb, they defeated the Japanese Empire and contributed to the Allies’ victory over the Axis powers in World War II.

The colonial capitalist system led by America triumphed in the Cold War against the second global pole, leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union at the hands of its own sons and party cadres like Boris Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, and others who did not realize that small concessions roll like a snowball to create an uncontrollable reality.

With the defeat of Marxism and the fracturing of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama wrote “The End of History,” celebrating the victory of the West and capitalism over the East and socialist thought, breaking the dogmatism of Marxism to the point where its adherents flounder between abandoning, modifying, and patching it up.

This is America, victorious in major headlines and geopolitics on a global level, but on the micro-political level, meaning local conflicts, it could be stronger. It has suffered and continues to suffer historical failures and setbacks in every direct conflict with smaller nations that have stood strong against American influence and failed to establish its model or appoint proxies to fight on its behalf in those countries.

America repeatedly makes the fatal mistake of handling internal conflicts in each country despite its dominance and ability to bend the arms of governments and control international politics. However, it is weak and hesitant in influencing policies and conflicts locally for many reasons including:

Lack of information about the environments of these conflicts and the driving and defining factors.

Its own and its allies’ special agendas and economic interests as it tend to favor its followers, even if they are misguided.

The personal goals of those representing America in resolving conflicts, like Volker who deliberately ignored the political power balances in Sudan and provided misleading information to the international community.

America succeeded on a global level in dismantling the Soviet Union but was defeated by the resistance of the poor in Vietnam.

It defeated imperial Japan but stood powerless before the Somali rebels in the streets of Mogadishu.

America failed in its conflict with the Sandinista front in Nicaragua despite the conflict lasting many years and using the Contras (counter-revolutionaries) as an armed faction, yet they faced military defeat despite American military, financial, and political support since the will of the people was stronger.

It strived for more than half a century to overthrow Castro and his socialist regime until it reconciled with him during Obama’s tenure.

America supported the Afghan government for a long time, but it could not protect it after the failed Doha negotiations between America and the Taliban, disappointing its allies and leaving them to fall from planes just as those before them fell from American ships fleeing the hell of Vietnam with the same tragedy and disappointment.

America failed in its negotiations with North Korea over nuclear capabilities, and the North Korean government remained unconcerned until it forcefully entered the atomic club.

America exerted maximum effort to achieve peace between the disputing parties in Libya and ensured the enforcement of the Skhirat Agreement, which is still in a state of clinical death despite the succession of envoys from Bernard Leon and Martin Kobler to the Senegalese Abdallah Batelli.

Here is America, concerned with the events in Sudan a year after the war and destruction because elections are around the corner, and the Democratic Party benefits from such small diplomatic maneuvers, yet it is incapable of merely implementing resolutions it signed on as a mediator and facilitator.

Likewise, countless cases demonstrate the capacity of people to control their destinies when the will of the people and the political leadership in a country converge around sovereignty, freedom, and independence.