Contemporary Issues in Global Politics - Assignment Example

Contemporary Issues in Global Politics: Why does the US administration obtain so little support from other governments in the global diplomacy of thetwenty-first century? The trust and respect for the United States government is steadily on the decline all across the globe. The policies of the present Bush Administration have proved to be highly unpopular both domestically and internationally. The following passages try to analyze the reasons behind such a loss of confidence in the American government. A few important foreign policy cases are taken to support arguments. To start with, let us take the case of the ongoing war in Iraq and its previous episode in 1991. The aftermath of this war proved to be a big public relations disaster, leading to a diminished stature of the United States in global diplomacy. This provides for an interesting case study on the motives, ethics and modus operandi of government agencies and media organizations. While the respective governments are the primary participants in a war situation, the media’s role is to document unfolding events in an objective and non-partisan manner. Two particular interpretations, pertaining to governance and journalism were chosen for analysis in this essay, which will substantiate widely held negative sentiments about the American government. The following cases also expose the real agenda of the American government beneath the benevolent façade that mainstream media tries to project (Daalder, 2004). Firstly, In January 1991, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the small neighboring country of Kuwait. Iraq was in no way provoked by the Kuwaiti leadership. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s action was unwarranted and illegitimate. But, was the response from the rest of the world (particularly the United States), any more legitimate or warranted? Sadly, the answer is in the negative. 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 favored 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) Unfortunately, not many people knew this reality at the time. The false propaganda from the government quarters was so grand in scale that it appeared genuine and truthful. If maintaining sovereignty of independent countries is the reason for the war, then why didn’t the U.S. Government interfere with the Chinese annexation of Tibet and other such atrocities across the world? Hence, the real motivations for American intervention were buried under a veil of propaganda. But recent investigations about the role of media in disseminating falsities about the activities of the United States government had brought about a change in the general consensus, which also explains why not many nation-states are willing to ally with the United States in its diplomatic endeavors (Allen, 2003). The aforementioned case was just the most recent of a long list of digressions on part of the American Government. Right through its history, America has not hesitated to use force under the pretexts of principles, sovereignty and justice. American military intervention in world affairs has risen drastically since the end of the Second World War. The period following the Second World War saw America assume the role of a superpower that headed the western coalition in what was a bipolar world. In a way, the nuclear bombing of Japan was the first of its international digressions and the ongoing Iraq quagmire the latest. Since the collapse of Soviet Union, America has had at its disposal the most potent military force. Its economic structure complements military spending; leading to a military industrial complex. The 2003 Allied invasion of Iraq was not an exception. Neither was United States’ role in the ugly end to the Second World War. This historical record of misusing its power had made traditional allies reluctant to join America in its military expeditions across the world. While the chief cause for both incidents of aggression is largely systemic, individual decision making played a part too. De-classified information of the Second World War period indicates that President Truman gave orders for using nuclear weapons against the general consensus of his inner circle. In the case of the Iraq war too, President Bush’s decision to invade is attributable to his personal stake in the oil industry. 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.” (Anderson, 2005) 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. At the time of the Japanese bombings though, there was no United Nations or any influential mediating organization. In this sense, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was legal, but only at a technical level. If standards of basic human rights and humanitarianism are applied, then the Japanese episode is as gross a violation as the present Iraqi one. The culmination of such disrespect for international law is the cause for other nations’ reluctance to join America in its diplomatic and military pursuits (Anderson, 2005). 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). 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, the perception of other nations about the legitimacy of most American interventions is not positive (Allen, 2003) Another darker aspect of both these wars was their destruction of civilian populations. These wars are not events in history, confined to school text-books alone. The aftermath of the Allied bombing of Iraqi landscape has brought about irreparable damages to the innocent civilian population. Neutral observers, including the United Nations agree that the use of heavy artillery has caused irreversible damage to Iraqs people and a general decline of its environment. As a consequence incidences of ailments among Iraqi children have increased sharply. The devastation caused by the 1945 bombings was of much greater intensity. America and its allies though deny these charges; as a result the general public is insulated from these darker realities (Mould, 1996). American Presidents presiding over some key events in history, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, etc., were hindered from acting as public representatives due to pressure from the military industrial complex. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush – all of them were subject to these opposing interests. But eventually, the corporate-government nexus proved too powerful; and in this sense American Presidents after the Second World War were largely restricted and powerless to uphold their higher personal values. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, America and its allies expected and prepared for a conventional war where their technologically superior military power would “shock and awe” the opponents into submission. But the reality however has proved to be much different. The coalition forces are mired in never-ending cycles of guerrilla warfare. If any lessons were learnt from the Vietnam fiasco, war should be a last resort and backed by significant domestic support. The Vietnam affair also exposed the need for international support. And before starting war operations there must be a clear exit strategy that is basically absent in the present quagmire. Such obstinacy not to learn from the country’s own past experiences depletes any credibility the Bush Administration might have enjoyed otherwise. All these factors make it all the more difficult for the American Government of the new Millennium to attract allies and partners in their interventionist ventures (Mould, 1996). On the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, the German Foreign minister Joschka Fischer openly questioned American intentions behind the intervention. Such doubts were expressed by other members of the European Union as well. The differences were not just at the diplomatic level. A public opinion poll conducted on the eve of the war revealed how an overwhelming majority of people in Europe disagreed with the American official line. More importantly, they believed that the war was illegitimate. The public sentiment in the United States was exactly the opposite. Some analysts point that the divide in public opinion is nothing more than a reflection of the prevailing world order. Nevertheless, such a simplistic reason is insufficient in explaining a pervasive set of beliefs and attitudes. Similar sentiments were expressed by allies and rivals alike with regard to the situation in Japan in 1945. Hence, some historical parallels could be discerned and it is becoming ever more obvious why America’s reputation is becoming tainted (Anderson, 2005). In this context, which was eventually modified, and always subject to criticism, when it became clear toward the end of 2003 that Iraq did not possess WMD, by the 2004 updating of rhetoric to “Iraq had only had the potential to acquire and use them”, and the official line that terrorism was a result of regime change in Iraq (which escalated the activities of guerrillas and insurgents). Just as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have called for an acceptance of law and legitimacy, they have also raised questions regarding the suitability of such terms as “insurgents, guerrillas, rebels, resistance members, terrorists, detainees, prisoners of war, lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, military commissions,  competent tribunals, as well as others expressions.” (Chomsky, 2004) What is required at present is a critical need to clarify concepts of law and legitimacy in the wake of these invasions. What we see here is more examples of the hegemonic approach to foreign policy that is corrupting America’s colorful history and making other nations weary of it. Viewed in this light, the economic imperialism of the present day is a sophisticated form of militaristic imperialism of yester-centuries; United States being at the forefront of this wave. 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. In the American context (the only remaining superpower), almost all Presidents, including McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were party to this phenomenon. Though masked in the rhetoric of aversion to old-fashioned imperialism and its hopes for world peace, the centerpiece 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). 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). Works Cited: 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). Daalder, I. H., The Preemptive-War Doctrine Has Met an Early Death in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, 2004. 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. Cohen, E A (May-June 1994). Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, Foreign Affairs, 73, n3. p.141(7). 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).  Read More