By Yuram Abdullah Weiler

In the best interests of Americans: A response to a Congresswoman

August 26, 2019

“It's my job to make sure that the United States government acts in the best interests of Americans, and I'll continue working tirelessly to hold our government to the highest standards.” — U.S. Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small (D, NM)

Occasionally, I still write to U.S. Congressional leaders when my outrage over absurd policies becomes unbearable, as was (and is) the case with Washington’s 40-year-old vendetta against the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Since I am regarded as a person of no economic significance, at least as far as U.S. political leaders are concerned, I rarely receive responses and when I do, they are inevitably form letters most likely written by staff members.  Such is the case with an email I had written to several U.S. politicians voicing concern over the escalation of tensions with Iran.  

The email response from Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small was a lengthy form letter that included a number of aphorisms on the U.S. that begged for a response. Among them was the above epigram, as well as her stating, “The U.S. has many tools-including diplomacy, trade, foreign aid-to pursue our goals of peace and prosperity around the world.”  It was the assertion of the U.S. pursuing goals of peace and prosperity around the world that really pushed me over the top.  The blatant contradiction between this statement and the reality of Washington’s state-sponsored terrorism by economic sanctions and destabilization for regime change was so jarring that I was compelled to draft the response that follows.

Hon. Xochitl Torres Small
U.S. Congresswoman
430 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

August 23, 2019

Dear Congresswoman Torres Small,

Thank you for your response concerning U.S. military presence around the world.  As you correctly point out, the conduct of the military and governmental officials has a profound effect on the lives of citizens of other countries and their perceptions of America.  Likewise you assert that the U.S. has diplomacy, trade and foreign aid among tools available for pursuing its geopolitical objectives.  Given the U.S. State Department’s budget of around $50 billion pales when compared to that of the Pentagon with almost $700 billion, one is tempted to conclude that Washington does not place a high value on diplomacy.

I must, however, question your statement that the goals of the U.S. are “peace and prosperity around the world.” From the coup engineered by the U.S. to topple the government of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 to the more recent invasions of Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Syria (2011-present), it seems clear that, rather than “peace and prosperity,” the U.S. has imposed pain, pestilence and poverty, and appears hell bent on causing more of the same with its obsession with regime change in Iran.  After seeing the chaos they created in the aftermath of their ill-conceived, illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the formation and expansion of ISIS, how can U.S. leaders think that destabilizing the Islamic Republic of Iran would bring greater stability to the Middle East?  If peace and prosperity were truly U.S. goals, then a golden opportunity was missed when former Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami offered peace in a “grand bargain” with Washington in 2003, asking only for reasonable security and non-interference assurances.  Incidentally, this noble offer came after George W. Bush had included Iran as a member of the “axis of evil” in his January 2002 State of the Union address.

Ending the U.S. support for Mohammad bin Salman’s sanguinary war on the people of Yemen with your support of Senate Joint Resolution 7, had it not been vetoed, would have been a small step in the right direction, but one must look at the recent history of the country to understand the origins of the Ansar Allah movement (the so-called Houthi rebels), which is a popular uprising that began in 2011 in opposition to the U.S. and Saudi-imposed ruler, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.  Much to the consternation of the citizens of Yemen, the previous ruler, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had given carte blanche to U.S. drone attacks, allegedly against Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, but was a backer of the Ansar Allah movement after his resignation in 2012.  Over 56,000 have been killed and some 7 million affected by starvation and cholera as a result of this U.S.-backed Saudi-led war.  Is this peace and prosperity?  No, it is in support of “ally” Saudi Arabia and is to the benefit of U.S. weapons manufacturers who profit from the arms sales.

Likewise, the record of U.S. involvement in Latin America is heavy in the suppression of popular liberation movements, the installation of right-wing dictators, and the funding and training of death squads.  Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), Costa Rica (1917), El Salvador (1979), Guatemala (1954), Nicaragua (1932), Paraguay (1954), Uruguay (1973) and the list goes on.  U.S. support of the military junta associated death squads in El Salvador led to the slaughter of over 75,000 people alone.  Is this peace and prosperity?  No, it is supporting the interests of the United Fruit Company and other associated corporate interests.

Cuba has been a victim of U.S. economic terrorism since 1959, when Fidel Castro successfully ousted the U.S.-supported dictator, Fulgencio Batista.  U.S. intervention in Cuba dates back to at least 1823 when secretary of state John Quincy Adams threatened Spain with retaliation should it attempt to transfer Cuba to another colonial power.  The main concern of the U.S. at that time was fear that Cuban independence might incite another successful slave rebellion, as had been the case in Haiti in 1804.  As documented by George Washington University’s treasure trove of documents, the U.S. attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro over 600 times, even hiring known Mafia leaders in its attempts.  Of course, there was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 that led to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the precipice of nuclear war, something which “impacts the wellbeing of people around the world.”

The same holds for Venezuela, which continues to be victimized by Washington’s warmongers after failed coups in 2002 and again this year.  Venezuela and its officials have been targeted by U.S. sanctions, which have devastated the economy yet the current U.S. administration blames this on the Venezuelan government.  The United Nations estimates that 90 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty and close to 4 million have fled to other Latin American countries and Caribbean nations. The U.S. government has budgeted $500 million in aid for the economic woes it has created.  Is this within the scope of the alleged U.S. goal of peace and prosperity?

Ever since the newly independent country of Mexico had the audacity to abolish slavery in 1829, the U.S. has intervened in its southern neighbor’s internal affairs both covertly and overtly. By the blatant annexation of Texas in 1845, the U.S. provoked a war with Mexico, and went on to seize Mexican territory comprising the present day states of New Mexico, Arizona and California. In all, Mexico has lost half of its territory to its northern neighbor. Now, with the current occupant of the Oval Office, the venom and vitriol directed towards Mexico has reached unprecedented and unconscionable levels.  Where in these acts has the U.S. demonstrated any concern over peace and prosperity for the people of Mexico?

I believe that a casual reading of U.S. history should be enough to convince anyone that worldwide peace and prosperity are not within the goal of America’s foreign policy.  Rather, as is as stated in the Pentagon’s Joint Vision 2020, the true goal of the U.S. is having worldwide “full spectrum dominance,” which is claimed to be necessary due to “the global interests of the United States and the continuing existence of a wide range of potential threats to those interests.”  I think it would be naïve for one to claim that those nebulous interests referred to are congruent with the best interests of Americans.

Regarding your pledge of “working tirelessly to hold our government to the highest standards,” might I suggest that returning the U.S. to the observance of international law should be one of them?  Specifically, by its unilateral pullout from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is not the U.S. government in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231?  At a minimum, the U.S. stands accusable of nonperformance of its commitments under the JCPOA.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you further and look forward to your response.

Regards,

Yuram Abdullah Weiler
+1 303 377 8231
700 Sombrero Court
Las Cruces, NM 88007
 

Leave a Comment

2 + 1 =