The legal guardian of the world’s fortunes and resources—this is the most fitting description I see that aligns with America’s unannounced policy. If we want to understand what is happening around us in the world and the undeclared reasons for declaring wars, colonization, or even the newly trending term "counter-terrorism," we must comprehend and grasp American policy as the first step. This power emerged on the global stage after the Cold War and the collapse of its Soviet rival. America follows a specific strategy in its foreign policy, which is the policy of “showing contrary to what is concealed.”

This policy, in itself, shaped American power, which manifested during World War II when it managed to displace Britain and France from half of the Western hemisphere, claiming hegemony in this region and challenging the laws of the international system, which it viewed with its arrogant strength to be above international laws and the International Court of Justice. Rather, it is America that secretly crafts the laws of the international system and imposes them for application.

After successfully eliminating imperial competitors from the Western world and implementing the Monroe Doctrine—this document about which U.S. Secretary of State Lansing said that the United States protects its interests by endorsing the Monroe Doctrine, which President Wilson felt embarrassed to announce publicly, stating it was inappropriate to reveal American policy’s hidden intentions, especially as idealism in international relations had reached its peak—he nonetheless expressed support for Lansing's statement that the doctrine could not be revoked.

With this doctrine, Central America took on its new role in the new world order: selling raw materials and soaking up the benefits of American capital. The power of the United States rose as it monopolized the term “unipolarity” in the world, possessing half of the world’s wealth through illegal interventions in overseas elections or by delegating democracy in select countries considered gateways to the Middle East, such as Italy, Turkey, and Greece. As diplomatic historian Gerald Dehnitz notes, alongside the first historian of the CIA, the American administration took on the responsibility for the welfare of the capitalist system following World War II.

Greece was seen officially as part of the Middle East rather than Europe until the Greeks overthrew the fascist regime supported by the United States in the 1970s, which the U.S. State Department classified as a “source of strategic power,” considering it part of the outskirts required to guarantee control over Middle Eastern oil.

**Applying the Monroe Doctrine to the Middle East**

After World War II, America boasted about its power like a spoiled child that could get whatever it wanted, expressing a desire to expand its influence and control over Middle Eastern oil resources. Britain allied with it in this and followed a strategy of acting as it pleased without interference from any side, whether from the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, or the Organization of American States.

The British competitor to America was aware of the significance and danger of this doctrine and wrote after World War II, "It has always been my hope that we model our approach in the Middle East on the wise American example. I wish we had produced a document like the Monroe Doctrine, clarifying to the inhabitants of the region that we have ammunition in our guns and that we will fire it when necessary.” When the United States revealed its hidden policy in its desire to control Saudi Arabia, the British minister was provoked and angrily commented, “This is not Panama or San Salvador.”

America's unannounced policy, which has its roots deeply embedded over long decades of emergence and rising influence over international law, monopolizes decision-making for itself and imposes sanctions on those whose interests do not align with it. It has pursued a unipolar approach in all aspects of its foreign political dealings, showing little concern for Eastern European countries or for the suffering of Latin American nations that have grown weary of its dominance. It would reject any form of lawful, peaceful dissent against its oppressive policy over people in nations worldwide, which was evident in February 1997 when the U.S. rejected a World Trade Organization ruling against sanctions imposed by the American administration on Cuba following a request from the European Union to the organization. The response from America through the Kennedy administration expressed hope for bringing about change in the government of Havana.

The same attitude followed when the American administration refused the International Court decision regarding the ending of illegal use of force—international terrorism against Nicaragua—and its refusal to pay any reparations, also disregarding United Nations resolutions regarding respect for international law, with the U.S. receiving support only from Israel.

During the Clinton administration, the Monroe model was applied in the Middle East when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated before the Security Council, "From the standpoint of paramount importance of the region for American interests, we will act collectively when we can and unilaterally when necessary. We will not recognize any borders, obstacles, or even international.

BY: Netanya Mordechai