File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2001/postcolonial.0109, message 168


Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mucahit Bilici <mucahitbilici-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Hobbes returns from abroad and crushes into WTC



>From Explosion to Implosion: The Domestic Echo of
American Foreign Policy


 
"They hate freedom and democracy” says an American
citizen on Thursday night’s show on NPR. Most
Americans are not only shocked by the terror events of
September 11 but also find it difficult to comprehend
the reasons behind these acts the perpetrators of
which have not yet been identified. While everybody is
focused on the usual suspects and the possible
retaliations, the critical re-evaluation of the US
foreign policy is no where in sight. Critics such as
Noam Chomsky continue to say exactly what they have
been saying for decades and question the US foreign
policy.
 
The fact that it was the most complicated hi-tech
terrorist attack and that we do not know who did it
(yet) does not mean that we cannot ask certain
questions of self-criticism. The issue that can be
raised independent of the identity of the terrorists
has to do with how American identity is constituted
abroad through US foreign policy. Most of the US
citizens are asking how come that they are made
subject to such a horrific destruction (of lives and
wealth) while they are so good people and admirers of
democracy and freedom (indeed they are). They believe
that they do not deserve it and cannot comprehend the
unfolding catastrophic situation. It is the shocking
gap between US domestic and foreign policy that makes
the unthinkable outcomes possible and probably for the
first time American public comes to see the
devastating echo of its foreign policy about which it
has almost no idea.
 
US Foreign Policy: Kant at Home, Hobbes in the World
 
For long time American foreign policy makers and
international relations experts have maintained the
neo-realist approach according to which the foreign
policy has to be completely detached from the domestic
politics. Inside the country there was hierarchy
(state) but outside was dominated by a condition
called anarchy which was meant to be, "the war of all
against all." Hence, democracy would be promoted
domestically but not internationally even if the US
remains to be the only hegemon of the uni-polar world
after the collapse of communism and it could do so.
When the "only hegemon" in a world of anarchy holds
the idea that international politics is a constant
state of war, then, this belief becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. In a Hobbesian world, the
actor which will gain most (or lose least) is the
strongest one. Hence, we have been living in a
conflictual world and with an interest-driven hegemon.
American pragmatism ask for democracy in China but not
in Saudi Arabia. It would not bother about the fact
that it did not unseat Iraq’s dictator though it could
do so. Democracy and human rights have been perceived
as nothing but a rhetoric which can be employed as a
weapon against authoritarian countries for
facilitation of US interests. USA always preferred its
interest over the principles it pretends to champion.
Democracy in China means undermining of the nascent
competitor and therefore it is desirable whereas
democracy in Iraq or Saudi Arabia would mean more
expensive oil. Hence, human rights and the freedom of
those living outside the US especially in the Middle
East never became an issue of concern for US foreign
policy experts.

Thousands of "innocent" people were killed by the US
military "operations" in countries such as Iraq and
Sudan. Kurds in Northern Iraq were encouraged and
supperted by the US to rebel against Saddam Hussein
but were not protected when Saddam Hussein retaliated.
Many of them were killed after the Gulf War. 
American public watched the Gulf War on CNN. It was
like a computer game. Public did not realize the
meaning and consequences of the bombs for those who
could not be seen through the cameras in the planes.
American citizens were never allowed to know what was
carried out by their government on behalf of them.
They believed that their country saved the sovereignty
of a free country (Kuwait) against the invasion by a
dictator who was against freedom and democracy. They
were never shown the black Sudanese bodies that were
destroyed by the military operation.

America-Abroad is tremendously different from the
America-at-Home that its citizens know. USA is Kantian
at home (yes, Americans love freedom and democracy)
but it is Hobbesian in the world. Thanks to its
foreign policy makers and IR experts that USA's
foreign policy is produced and performed almost
totally independent of the participation of
freedom-and-democracy-loving American citizens.
Whatever takes place abroad (loss of lives and wealth
of others) is not known and cannot be felt by the
insiders of this superpower. It is not only because
America is paradise in itself but also because outside
of America is made into a hell for others that
everybody needs to rush to get into this country and
become its citizens. The criminal policy of talking
Kant at home while promoting Hobbes abroad becomes
evident only when Hobbes returns home in a "Hobbesian"
way. We are all conditioned to blame usual suspects
such as Bin Laden but we do not ask the question who
created Bin Laden or more precisely who fed Hobbes
abroad. By the way, who are evil enough not to love
freedom and democracy?

Mucahit Bilici



__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005