The Politics of Good and Evil

The current Bush administration would have us believe that geopolitics can be explained in a black and white, 'you're either for us or you're against us' manner. This has the effect of branding everyone opposing their 'War on Terror' as supporters of terrorism which is unhelpful in a number of ways; firstly, it creates a false dilemma in which countries are forced into agreeing with the widely-despised Bush foreign policy (or at least appearing to) which often has a disastrous effect on those countries' domestic politics; secondly, it sets up the US as a moral arbiter who, when judged against their own standards, are often to be found wanting. I must make it clear that I do not want to write a lazy anti-American rant because America are by no means the worst human rights violators in the world (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea and Iran!) but I wish to challenge the thinking behind the neo-con approach to foreign policy and wish to clarify the charge of hypocrisy that the US have left themselves wide open to (consolidated in no small part by America's support for at least one of the aforesaid human rights violators).

On the first point, regimes in the Middle East who have supported the war on terror such as Musharraf's military dictatorship in Pakistan have had their domestic politics marked my a rise in support for Islamism by disillusioned, angry, mostly young and often poor citizens. The Taliban have been able to move from Afghanistan to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas such as Waziristan in Pakistan and have set up a formidable stronghold on the outer reaches of a major nuclear power. In Saudi Arabia wahhabism is actively encouraged and propagated (some imans in Britain are funded by Saudi extremists) and the country even produced the Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The UK and Spain too have not escaped. Putting it simply, the more the US and others fight terrorism in a military sense the more it flourishes.

On the second point, America has set herself and her allies against an 'Axis of Evil' dictatorships and regimes which harbour terrorism that is a threat to the US. This in itself is logical (whatever you think of it in other respects) when explained in terms of securing US interests around the world. What is not logical nor acceptable is the wrapping of this agenda in the language of human rights, democracy and that wonderfully malleable and subjective political ideal 'freedom'. America conveniently ignores, as it has in the past, rogue regimes which follow its line and protect its interest. Why was Pinochet's Chile in which 11,000 people were "disappeared" by Argentina’s military dictatorship (human rights groups put the death toll at 30,000) fine when Castro's Cuba is abominable? Why has General Musharraf's nuclear-armed Pakistan (currently in the throes of a 'state of emergency' during which prominent 'terrorists' like the former Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan have been detained) been supported by the US for so long while not-quite nuclear-armed Iran is international enemy number-one? Why is theocratic hell-hole Saudi Arabia labelled as 'moderate' and an 'ally in the region' and why is Palestinian-occupying, Lebanon-obliterating, militarist Israel kosher? The answer is a simple one; it is in the interests of the US and capital. America has no real concern for the principle democracy if it returns anti-American governments like in Venezuela or Bolivia and it cares little for the human rights it tramples on in Guantanamo Bay. America are merely using the cosy language of human rights to further their own agenda. Even Alan Greenspan has come out and said Iraq was partly about oil!  All of this simply feeds the fire of anti-Americanism and plays into the terrorists' hand.

So, what can be done about this? America is the only real global superpower at present but this will not always be the case (America's economy and currency are weakening and China and India are on the rise). Those of us who say, "Well, better America than [other power]" have a point but we must work towards creating an international system that prevents unilateral actions by one power against another and the domination of the weak by the strong so that when, for example, China is the superpower there are checks and balances to counterweight her hegemony. That is, of course, presuming that the power will lie predominately with one power (we could see a more multi-polar world in the future and changing of the balance of power frequently like in 19th century Europe. They, at least, had the Congress system). We need a system therefore that is consistent no matter who has the most power and how power is destributed in real terms. Reform of the UN would be a start, at present it is dominated by the 5 permanent Security Council countries who can veto all change and are in their positions by virtue of an historical accident, and it is often ignored. However, what we need is a global system with teeth that gives ALL countries a say and that is truly representative in its composition. A strong power should not be able to ride over the wishes of smaller, weaker states. The institution needed should truly reflect the small states' collective bargaining power over areas of mutual interest, it should empower each and every state in a variety of circumstances to create a balance of power. This is not an easy system to create and I am sure there will be many problems with it but I believe something resembling it is vital for the future security of the world. Otherwise, the rise of a power not so conducive to us or to other areas of the world may be free to wreak havoc or we will have no way of managing the inevitable power-struggles of a world of many major powers. This prospect is frightening.