Amoral­ity be­hind self-serv­ing char­ac­ter of US for­eign pol­icy

The Star Early Edition - - LETTERS - Farouk Araie

AL­LOW me to com­ment on the let­ters by Iqbal Ran­deree and Zaakir Said.

Amer­ica’s for­eign pol­icy pos­ture un­der Pres­i­dent Donald Trump lies in tat­ters. He ut­terly failed to in­tim­i­date North Korea, iso­lated his coun­try from the global po­lit­i­cal arena and threat­ens to en­force regime change in Iran.

He ver­bally abused Pak­istan, a cru­cial ally in the war against ter­ror, con­ve­niently for­get­ting that this coun­try suf­fered im­mensely in at­tempt­ing to fight ter­ror­ism.

Be­tween 2002 and 2006, ter­ror­ism cost the Pak­istani econ­omy $119 bil­lion (R1.47 tril­lion). From 2001 to 2008, 24 000 peo­ple lost their lives. In the after­math of 9/11, 49 000 were killed in acts of ter­ror­ism.

The pol­icy of US dom­i­na­tion of the world, as na­tion builderin-chief and po­lice­man of the world, has failed and must be aban­doned, if not as a moral im­per­a­tive, then cer­tainly out of eco­nomic ne­ces­sity.

US pol­icy in the Mid­dle East, Asia and Africa has failed to ac­com­plish its ob­jec­tive and has been coun­ter­pro­duc­tive. Mil­i­tary so­lu­tions tram­pled over ne­go­ti­a­tions.

Counter-in­sur­gency pro­duced in­sur­gents. The US iden­ti­fied anti-com­mu­nism as its prin­ci­pal guide to for­eign pol­icy dur­ing the Cold War, but sim­i­lar poli­cies con­tin­ued after the Soviet Union’s col­lapse and dis­in­te­gra­tion.

If the pre­sen­ta­tions ap­pear one-sided, it is be­cause US ad­min­is­tra­tions ap­pear one-sided and have ex­hib­ited pat­terns that caused in­ter­na­tional catas­tro­phes.

In­ter­fer­ence in in­ter­nal af­fairs of na­tions and di­rect US in­volve­ment have not brought peace and sta­bil­ity to the world.

The New World Or­der war­lords con­trol the world. The New World Or­der means noth­ing but the ab­so­lute, unconditional, un­re­stricted power of the US.

Need­less to say, Amer­ica’s lead­ers strive might­ily to ob­scure this. At the time the New World Or­der was cre­ated it was in­ter­preted to mean the rule of in­ter­na­tional law.

The end of the Cold War meant that na­tions would no longer be able to play the great pow­ers off against one an­ther.

There was only one power in the world, the West. And the West, as ev­ery­one knew, stood for in­ter­na­tional law. Hence na­tions would have to re­solve their dif­fer­ences in ac­cor­dance with civilised norms.

The UN would fi­nally come of its own. How­ever, the rule of in­ter­na­tional law is the last thing the US has in mind. As al­ways, the UN is handy only when Amer­i­cans are able to con­trol it. If they can­not, they dis­re­gard it.

On one hand, there is the vast pool of hu­man­ity which has to con­form to con­tem­po­rary West­ern no­tions of “tol­er­ance”, “di­ver­sity” and “mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism.” On the other hand, there is “the en­forcer” from Wash­ing­ton.

On the one hand we have “tol­er­ance” that tol­er­ates ev­ery­thing ex­cept in­tol­er­ance of tol­er­ance.

On the other hand, we have the US, ready to use its mil­i­tary might to en­force the rule of “tol­er­ance.”

The Mid­dle East has be­come a vic­tim to the se­duc­tions of the New World Or­der.

US pol­icy in this re­gion fol­lows a multi-pronged geopo­lit­i­cal strat­egy, the cru­cial el­e­ment of which is the use of Is­lam as a bat­ter­ing ram.

It is the amoral­ity, stand­ing as they do be­tween good and evil, of peo­ple like Trump which ex­plains the bru­tal, im­moral and vi­ciously self-serv­ing char­ac­ter of much of Amer­i­can for­eign pol­icy to­day.

An im­por­tant dif­fer­ence be­tween to­day’s West­ern du­plic­ity and those of the World War II war­lords is to be found in the hypocrisy in which al­lied bru­tal­ity clothes it­self.

Amer­i­can pol­icy in Mid­dle East, Asia and Africa has failed


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.