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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005