What will be Washington’s response in this situation? The recent reports in the United States that China may build a military base in Cuba (although Havana denied the truth), provide several clues about the possible response of the United States.
The erstwhile Soviet Union and Russia, which emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, have invaded several countries. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. Russia then attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine once again in 2014 and 2022. In addition, they have played a heinous role in other countries including Syria.
The US has similarly imposed wars on countries or played a lesser role than Russia in bringing about regime change. Often US action has focused on strengthening US-friendly regimes in Central and South America or overthrowing governments in hostile countries. The United States has followed this policy in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, and other territories in the region.
Cuba was the fifth largest economy in the Western Hemisphere in the 1950s before the United States imposed a comprehensive embargo. But the U.S. imposed an economic blockade on the country. Cuba is a great example of how the US can impose its influence and endanger a country.
On the other hand, Hawaii is another great example of a country that suffered industrialization collapse and linguistic extinction due to the United States. The prosperity that existed before the United States made Hawaii its 50th state on August 21, 1959, subsequently ended. Before US colonization, Iolani Palace in Hawaii had electric lights, while the White House did not. At that time Hawaii had electricity, public transportation, railroads. At that time, Hawaii had the highest literacy rate in the world.
In a much-discussed open letter by Yury Gorodnichenko and other economists published on a University of Berkeley blog focusing on the Russia-Ukraine war, the authors say the idea of building a “sphere of influence” is an archaic idea. According to him, ‘this concept was appropriate during the period of kings or empires. This idea is not for the modern age.’ By accepting that concept, it loses much of its neutrality if it is selectively applied to Russia and China. Because the sphere of influence that the United States has built due to the establishment of 750 military bases in 80 countries of the world has exceeded its ‘own hemisphere’.
Western military activity on the lines of NATO has also been increasing in the Indo-Pacific region in recent times, as evidenced by the formation of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom’s alliance, Aucus. It is clear to all that this alliance is aimed at China. There is also the US-led Quad alliance, which is countering China’s influence over Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, China considers Hong Kong and Taiwan to be its territory historically. In this situation, when the leaders of China and America talk about these two territories, do they listen to each other? In the meeting between US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on June 19, did they talk about the attitude of compromise on Hong Kong and Taiwan?
Both countries remain uncompromising on the issue of sphere of influence expansion. In fact, imperialist leaders are, in the words of the philosopher Martin Buber, ‘soliloquy in the name of dialogue’. Buber defines such talk as dialogue as, ‘two or more persons meeting in a place; Everyone says the same thing in a strangely sarcastic and twisted way, and ends up talking to himself.’ That is, no one moves from someone’s position.
Buber wrote this in 1947. It was a different context. Today almost eight decades later, his words have become much more relevant to the issues of Indo-Pacific region and world politics.
Taken from Al-Jazeera, abridged from English
● Lorenzo Kamel is Director of Research Studies at research institute IOI
