The USA after the End of the Cold War - Literature review Example

Since the end of the cold war, the United s has been alone in the world; no or combinations of s provides an effective counterweightKenneth Waltz. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the balance of power swayed in favour of the United States. While the ruling elite of the United States seem to have benefited from this change in fortune, the rest of the world has had mixed consequences since the end of the Cold War. Political commentators agree that the demise of the Soviet Union heralded a new world order which held promise and threat to global harmony and prosperity. The rest of the essay will foray into the deeper implications of this new world order for allies and enemy states alike. To begin with, let us consider the very first act of military intervention that the United States undertook as the sole superpower – the Gulf War of 1991. While the pentagon could muster a justification for sending troops over to the Persian Gulf, the war’s aftermath proved to be a public relations disaster and diminished the stature of the United States in global diplomacy. This also provides for an interesting case study on the motives, ethics and modus operandi of government agencies and media organizations within the United States. Critics have pointed out how commercial interests of American Corporations have hijacked a supposedly democratic mission. In other words, it is an open secret that the middle-east region is of strategic importance. Any country with aspirations to dominate the world will have to have “control” over the region’s resources (read oil) and governments. The United States, the only superpower at the time, was not above this ambition. Noted American intellectual Noam Chomsky points to glaring misinformation released by the White House in his book “What Uncle Sam Really Wants”. In Chomsky’s own words, “The US wasnt upholding any high principle in the Gulf, nor was any other state. The reason for the unprecedented response to Saddam Hussein wasnt his brutal aggression -- it was because he stepped on the wrong toes. Saddam Hussein is a murderous gangster -- exactly as he was before the Gulf War, when he was our friend and favoured trading partner. His invasion of Kuwait was certainly an atrocity, but well within the range of many similar crimes conducted by the US and its allies, and nowhere near as terrible as some.” (Chomsky, 1993, p.48) Following this inauspicious start as the centre of a uni-polar world, the reputation of the United States steadily declined ever since. The sentiments of people outside of the United States in this debate are understandable. For example, there are widespread concerns regarding American hegemony in general and its foreign policies in particular. The adoption of a philosophy of unilateral action made the concerns all the more real. American policies tended to focus heavily on its security. The rationale was that if the only superpower in the world were to be secure, world security as such will advance. This sounds reasonable at a theoretical level. But the actual results tell a different story (Allen, 2003, p.25). This unilateral decision making framework almost all American governments since the end of the Cold War has made a mockery of the United Nations and its attempts to bring world peace. Let us consider the legality of the recent intervention in Iraq on the premises of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The meaning of Article 51 of the UN Charter is of relevance in determining the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Most legal professionals and civil law experts agree that the words “armed attack” mentioned in Article 51 of the 1945 edition must be read literally. In other words, there must have been material damages suffered by the affected nation before there can be a legitimate military response against the instigator. But there is a problem with such an interpretation. The weaponry and military systems of now are far more advanced than the ones used in 1945. Similarly, international consensus, as provided by the United Nations, was absent during the Second World War. With the acquisition of nuclear technology, a country can annihilate its target with the push of a button. All it takes is a few seconds and there is virtually no time to defend or respond. The judiciary is now gaining an understanding of this new reality and hence has come to accept “pre-emptive or anticipatory military action” as a lawful one. Without such proactive actions international peace and security will be jeopardized. So, if the U.N. Charter were to be read literally, the Iraq war is illegitimate. But, when it is placed in the context of advances in military technology and interpreted more broadly, the Iraq war may be declared a lawful one. Yet, what is more important is the fact that most other nations view American interventions with suspicion. So, the UN finds itself subservient and impotent against the decisions made in Washington in the post Cold War world. (Allen, 2003, p.25) The international consensus is that while the United States does not engage in blatant imperialistic projects of a by-gone age, it still bullies, threatens and controls its interests worldwide. Viewed in this light, the post Cold War American foreign policy framework is one of economic imperialism, which is a sophisticated form of militaristic imperialism of yester-centuries. It was not simply a matter of plundering wealth, but of preserving long-standing systemic conditions for retaining power and privilege within the neo-imperialist society. Though masked in the rhetoric of aversion to old-fashioned imperialism and its hopes for world peace, the centrepiece of its strategy remains economic expansionism. And, to execute that strategy the imperialist government will do all it can in "pushing and holding open doors in all parts of the world with all the engines of government ranging from polite coercion to the use of arms”. With such a tarnished recent history, the United States has lost its credibility across the rest of the world (Anderson, 2005, p.21). Richard Jackson, in his scholarly work “Writing, The War on Terror” points out how the mainstream American media colludes with the government in carrying out favourable propaganda campaigns and indoctrination. In particular, the author analyses “the role of language and discourse in the construction of the "war on terrorism". According to the author, language, in this context is used to “normalize the practice of war” on terrorism (Jackson, 2005, p.69). The book is also an exposition on how the political elite of the United States use language as a medium of public deception. The power wielded by the political elites of the country, the author argues, is so ubiquitous that even legislations are subject to manipulations. An interesting case in point is the “Patriots’ Act” (a euphemism). By delving into the labyrinth of official rhetoric over the last few years, the author comes up with impressive essays on the nature of American hegemony and its quest for global dominance. In Richard Jackson’s own words, “the language of anti-terrorists actually prevents rather than facilitates the search for solutions to political violence; that it actually encourages terrorism” (Jackson, 2005, p.120). The events of 9/11 were followed by calamities in the United Kingdom and Spain. The latter terror attacks were no less brutal when compared to the former, yet the reactions to these catastrophes in the respective parts of the world has been disproportionate. While the anger and indignation expressed by the American public representatives is quite vocal and well known, the reactions of their British and Spanish counterparts has been rather subdued – if not in rhetoric, surely in actions. Jackson alludes to a salient point when he tries to explain this discrepancy. This is mainly because other nations are regularly subject to acts of terror, but for Americans, a one-off event such as 9/11 had set off such melodrama and popular outcry that the American populace is surely out of touch with the realities of the outside world. This is also an indication of the “insular” nature of the post Cold War American society, which makes it difficult for their public representatives to understand and cooperate with alien leaders of state (Nye, 2006, p.139). A recent addition to the list of grievances against the world’s only super power is its handling of foreign nationals. The Guantanamo Bay detainment centre had gained notoriety for the way its inmates are treated. And to top it all, the Bush Administration attracted criticism for torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib. If photographs of prisoner treatment in Abu Ghraib is anything to go by (the photos showed Iraqi prisoners blinded by hoods and slung over prison railings, tied to leashes as animals and piled naked one upon another in heaps). Susan Sontag poignantly compares them to lynching of black Americans when pictures of corpses decorated postcards and souvenir albums. When defenceless, non-resistant prisoners were mercilessly tortured and killed, the very fundamentals of martial law are being breached. In Vietnam insurgents were named disparagingly as “gooks” and “slants”. In Iraq they are disdainfully termed “terrorists” and “thugs” without paying attention to their genuine grievances and interests. Reverend Jesse Jackson aptly describes this war as “without moral, legal or military legitimacy.” Hopefully, American citizens will demand an overhaul of American foreign policy, so that the neoconservative craving for power is not allowed to thrive (Hope, 2004, p.810). There are disagreements concerning the ends and means of employing torture as an investigative tool. One might dispute that the means are more important than the ends they realize. The question of ethics also crops up while dealing with such topics. Human rights activists hold that an individual however inhuman he/she may be needs to be treated ethically maintaining human dignity. An additional barrier towards legalizing torture is that a lot of thought and effort needs to be pumped in to make torture acceptable to all sections of the society. Surely, the reputation and stature of the United States will never improve if it acts arrogantly and violates basic human rights. (Palmer, 2005, p.41) The Bush Doctrine is perceived by many commentators as a reactionary policy framework. But, President Bush is not radically different from preceding Presidents. In fact, the underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine can be traced back to the Cold War era. Let us consider the Nixon Doctrine. The following are words spoken by Richard Nixon in the way of explaining his doctrine: “First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defence.” (Library of Congress Archives) What is remarkable in the above passage is that it has some similarities with the Bush Doctrine. While the modes of engaging an enemy state and the protocol to be followed may be different, both administrations were essentially focusing on extending the American Imperial project that was an off-shoot of its victory in the Second World War. Hence, President George Bush is simply continuing the American Imperial agenda, that can trace its origins in the initial stages of the Cold War and which still continues today. Apart from the geo-political significance of American militarism, the image of the country is also at stake. Popular opinion in the rest of the world is very unfavourable towards Americans – they don’t seem to make a distinction between the government and its populace. According to Robert Kagan, “To forge a renewed political consensus on the use of force, we first need to recognize that international legitimacy does matter. It matters to Americans, who want to believe they are acting justly and are troubled if others accuse them of selfish, immoral or otherwise illegitimate behaviour. It matters to our democratic friends and allies, whose support may attest to the justness of the cause and whose participation may often be necessary to turn a military victory into a lasting political success.” (Kagan, 2006, p.24) Kofi Annan, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations had displayed tact and skilful diplomacy in all his interactions with the United States government. It is an indication of the gravity of the violation that he openly questioned the legality of the Iraq war. Other notable diplomats too joined Annan in his condemnation of the war. For example, A.M. Slaughter argued that the invasion of Iraq by America and its allies “was categorically illegal under international law”. Richard Falk noted that “the illegality of recourse to war against Iraq in 2003 was clear. It was also clear before and after the war that there was no reasonable basis for invoking the ‘illegal but legitimate’ formula used by the Independent International Commission for Kosovo to deal with an exceptional circumstance of humanitarian emergency.” The academia across the world was also of a similar view. A majority of influential diplomats and political commentators outside of the United States concurred with these views (Harnden , 2004, p.26). Hence, Kenneth Waltz’s assertion that there is no counterweight to balance the might of American power is quite true. The United States, by virtue of being the only superpower, has the responsibility to protect and spread democratic values to all parts of the world. Its foreign policy should be much more than “defending and promoting material national interests”. Such was the vision of its founding fathers. In order to maintain the noble traditions of its early years, American policies should avoid making a distinction between foreign and domestic. This way, the standards applied to others will apply to themselves as well, ensuring justice to all. More importantly, America will win back the lost support from other nations (Mould, 1996, p.141). To rectify this state of affairs the United States must: 1. Pledge its actions to international law; 2. Commit itself to a consensual mode of decision-making as opposed to an independent one. 3. Upkeep policies of moderation as against extremism. 4. Successfully preserve harmony and prosperity within the union of democratic nations. Bibliography: Anderson, R D (Spring 2005)., Lessons from history on the limits of imperialism: Successful small state resistance to great power aggression., Journal of Third World Studies, 22, 1. p.21(20). Allen, T. (March 1, 2003). Perception is everything: the West talks of a moral case for war, yet Iraqis believe the US has committed grave crimes against them. Terry Allen looks at the battle for truth. (Comment and Analysis)., New Scientist, 177, 2384. p.25(1).  Chomsky, Noam., What Uncle Sam Really Wants, First published in 1993. Mould, D H (June 1996). Press pools and military-media relations in the Gulf War: a case study of the Battle of Khafji, January 1991. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 16, n2. p.133(27). Richard Jackson, “Writing, The War on Terrorism…”, Manchester University Press, published on August 11, 2005, ISBN-10: 0719071216 ISBN-13: 978-0719071218, 240 pages. Hope, David., "Torture." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53.4 (Oct 2004): 807-832. Palmer, Alasdair. "Is torture always wrong? Alasdair Palmer says that our absolute ban on all forms of torture is inconsistent with our acceptance of shoot-to-kill." Spectator 299.9242 (Sept 24, 2005): 40(3).  Chomsky, Noam., Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for Global Dominance., published in 2003. Daalder, I. H., James Lindsay, The Preemptive-War Doctrine Has Met an Early Death in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, 30th May, 2004. Harnden, Toby. "Hoping for the worst: Toby Harnden talks to an anti-war journalist who wants to see more Iraqis die--so that Bush will be thrown out in November." Spectator, 295.9171 (May 15, 2004): 26(2).  Kagan, R., Americas Crisis of Legitimacy, Middle East, Foreign Affairs., March-April 2006. p.23(4). Nye Jr., J S (July-August 2006). Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy., Foreign Affairs, 85, 4. p.139. Library of Congress Archives, accessed on 11th July, 2008.from Read More