Anyone who has read the many official and unofficial U.S. Government statements about the U.S. Government’s relationship to the rest of the world knows that that Government’s attitude equates competition as being hostility, and so demands that every other nation will ally itself to the U.S. Government, or else will be an enemy of that Government.
U.S. President George W. Bush stated it this way, in a 16 February 2002 speech to U.S. troops about “the coalition the Secretary of State’s working on” at that time, a “coalition” that would “stand squarely with the United States in the defense of freedom,” and which was otherwise undefined except to say that any nation which would not join this undefined coalition with the U.S. Government would thereby “stand with tyranny”: “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us” he threateningly said to any Government that would NOT subordinate themselves to “stand squarely with the United States in the defense of freedom” as the U.S. Government might subsequently come to define what that means. He said this after the 7 October 2001, to 17 December 2001, U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but before the 20 March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
And, then, there was the 28 May 2014 statement by U.S. President Barack Obama, to graduating cadets at the West Point Military Academy, telling them whom they would be fighting against when they graduate:
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.
He was telling the U.S. military that America’s economic competition, against the BRICS nations, is a key matter for America’s military, and not only for America’s private corporations; that U.S. taxpayers fund America’s military at least partially in order to impose the wills and extend the wealth of the stockholders in America’s corporations abroad; and that the countries against which America is in economic competition are “dispensable” but America “is and remains the one indispensable nation.” ONLY America is “indispensable”; all OTHER nations are “dispensable.” This, supposedly, also authorizes America’s weapons and troops to fight against countries whose “governments seek a greater say in global forums.” In other words, he was telling these future generals: they would be tasked to stop the growing economies from growing faster than America’s.
Unlike Bush, he wasn’t saying that America’s enemies were Governments that wouldn’t join its “coalition” that would be “in the defense of freedom” but that the enemies would instead be “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.” He was addressing America’s future generals and telling them that nations such as that — and Russia, and China — are America’s enemies, whom they will be tasked to conquer.
The latest official embodiment of this it’s-our-way-or-the-highway official U.S. Government attitude is the 6 February 2023 “ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY”, which identifies China as America’s #1 enemy and Russia as America’s #2 enemy. It says:
Great powers, rising regional powers, as well as an evolving array of non-state actors, will vie for dominance in the global order, as well as compete to set the emerging conditions and the rules that will shape that order for decades to come. Strategic competition between the United States and its allies, China, and Russia over what kind of world will emerge makes the next few years critical to determining who and what will shape the narrative perhaps most immediately in the context of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which threaten to escalate into a broader conflict between Russia and the West. Second, shared global challenges, including climate change. … Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine has highlighted that the era of nation-state competition and conflict has not been relegated to the past but instead has emerged as a defining characteristic of the current era. While Russia is challenging the United States and some norms in the international order in its war of territorial aggression, China has the capability to directly attempt to alter the rules-based global order in every realm and across multiple regions, as a near-peer competitor that is increasingly pushing to change global norms and potentially threatening its neighbors. Russia’s military action against Ukraine demonstrates that it remains a revanchist power, intent on using whatever tools are needed to try to reestablish a perceived sphere of influence despite what its neighbors desire for themselves, and is willing to push back on Washington both locally and globally. … China will remain the top threat to U.S. technological competitiveness, as Beijing targets key sectors and proprietary commercial and military technology from U.S. and allied companies and institutions. The Government of China is doubling down on efforts to boost indigenous innovation and to become self-sufficient. … China is central to global supply chains in a range of technology sectors, including semiconductors, critical minerals, batteries, solar panels, and pharmaceuticals. In a speech in April 2020, Xi noted his intentions to increase global supply chain dependencies on China, with an aim of controlling key supply chains and being able to use those supply chain dependencies to threaten and cut off foreign countries during a crisis. China’s dominance in these markets could pose a significant risk to U.S. and Western manufacturing and consumer sectors if the Government of China was able to adeptly leverage its dominance for political or economic gain. China is leading the world in building new chip factories, with plans to build dozens of semiconductor factories by 2024, most of which will be dedicated to producing older, more mature technologies. While China only accounted for 11 percent of worldwide semiconductor fabrication capacity in 2019, it is forecasted to reach 18 percent in 2025. Because of the difficulties China is facing from export controls by Western nations, it is focusing on lower-capability, commodity chip technology, and China could become a powerhouse in that segment, which could eventually make some buyers more reliant on China. …
The document has no documentation, but only assertions, which, based upon the past record of such publicly released documents from America’s ‘intelligence’ agencies, no intelligent reader will read as being anything but propaganda from the U.S. regime, in order to fool the public in the ways that America’s rulers want the public to be fooled.
The phrase “the rules-based global order” refers to an order that is to replace the existing international-laws-based international order, which has been built up under the U.N.’s Charter and brought into authority by a global federal democracy (however flawed) of nations. The aim is to replace the existing international order that is based upon those laws that have been established by the U.N. — to replace it by a future U.S. international dictatorship over all nations, which will be built instead upon “rules” that the U.S. regime will set and enforce against all other nations. This document pretends that the U.S. Government already possesses the moral authority that such a “rules-based global order” would need to have in order to be able to function.
It’s our way or the highway, however it is phrased. So: it is clear what America’s ‘allies’ are supporting. If it succeeds, it would be the first-ever, all-encompassing, global dictatorship.