Don't you dare, Prime Minister Blair
What is it that Milinda
Moragoda and Tony Blair have in common, besides a receding hairline
I mean? Both are keen to wave the stars and stripes as though the
US flag is a natural appendage of their physical self. When Milinda
Moragoda goes to a security conference in Hawaii and advocates US
leadership of the world, it does not come as a complete surprise.
All you have
to do is turn to the writings of rightist neo-conservative thinkers,
particularly those that have emerged after the end of the Cold War,
and there will be enough jingoistic piffle to tickle many a fancy.
And when you find yourself in Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii that
was stolen-okay annexed- by the United States more than a century
ago and geopolitical and geostrategic thinking is hardly your cup
of tea, why not repeat American neoconservative thinking and hand
over the whole world to Washington, lock, stock and barrel?
Even if such
dangerous political advocacy shocked the more sagely participants
who would have wondered at the depressing quality of Sri Lankan
thinking on international affairs after decades of promoting non-alignment,
at least it would have earned the gratitude of Moragoda's American
hosts. But one would hardly have accepted British Prime Minister
Tony Blair to sing from the same hymn sheet as he did last week
when he admonished French President Jacques Chirac for trying to
create different centres of power. If he expected Russian President
Vladimir Putin to join him in the praise of America, the bloody
nose Blair received in Moscow, metaphorically speaking of course,
should have served as a timely reminder that not all European leaders
are keen to sell their soul to the White House.
Estranged as
he is from the mainstream of western European thinking, Tony Blair
is trying, in the name of a single power centre to impose on the
world a cultural and political monolith. He is either more naïve
than most people think or this is a dangerous conspiracy hatched
in Christendom.
Such thinking
is gaining ground in the United States, especially with the return
of the Republicans and junior Bush to the White House. But why Blair
should help spread the gospel in Europe demands the attention of
a psychoanalyst than a political analyst. On the eve of a visit
to China by President Clinton almost five years ago, Robert Kagan
of the Carnegie Foundation spoke in almost the same terms, bemoaning
those inside and outside the United States who called for an end
to US hegemony.
As proof that
American dominance is essential for international peace and stability,
Kagan argued that despite calls for multipolarity, no nation wants
to undertake the task of managing global crises. He did not, of
course, mention that many crises are created by Washington. Interestingly
enough he pointed to the case of Iraq where only Washington stood
between Saddam Hussein and international order and argued that this
long term goal was undermined by France and Russia for short term
gains.
I wonder what
Kagan would be writing now, particularly when more and more evidence
of US duplicity, concocting of evidence and double standards are
emerging beside Washington's violation of international law and
undermining of the United Nations.
The call by Blair and Moragoda, like Kagan's, for American dominance
appears to derive from some hitherto undisclosed divine right to
tell the world what it is permitted to do and how it should be done.
It is strange that Kagan, for instance, who believes that the world
would be less democratic without US hegemony advances a principle
that is the very antithesis of democracy-the right or power of one
nation to tell others how to mind their affairs. One wonders whether
Washington has indeed helped advance democracy worldwide, has been
very selective in its pursuit of this goal or undermined elected
governments.
One could hardly
credit the last presidential elections in the US as democratic,
what with the president's brother Jeb Bush playing such a prominent
role. While pushing for democracy in China, for example, Washington
under so many administrations before and after the cold war, has
been extremely lackadaisical- to be charitable- in converting the
feudal monarchy of Saudi Arabia to embrace the democracy it preaches
to others. What about its own backyard? Washington was so obsessed
with trying to make a democrat out of Fidel Castro in Cuba that
it embraced as allies many notorious rightwing dictatorships in
Latin America.
Even when it
did not have the internationally dominant role it has today, Washington
conspired to topple democratically-elected governments such as that
of Chile's Salvador Allende without making these countries safe
for democracy. Allende was replaced by the rightwing dictator Agusto
Pinochet who was responsible for one of the most repressive of dictatorships
where thousands of civilians were killed, disappeared or imprisoned.
We in Sri Lanka know enough about the US involvement in Vietnam
and the atrocities committed including the use of weapons of mass
destruction, in the name of the free world. What is less well known
is how Washington under President Nixon took the war to Cambodia
without the knowledge of the Congress, armed and supported the Khmer
Rouge and later helped Pol Pot, the genocidal maniac.
Pol Pot was
one of the biggest mass murderers in history, a product of American
help just as the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Noriega,
all consigned to the rubbish heap of history when Washington has
done with them. It is because of America's dubious and ugly behaviour
on the world stage that other countries have become increasingly
conscious of the danger of a single dominant power trying to decide
norms of international conduct which it does not necessarily follow.
An unfortunate
effect of this hegemonistic role that the US has assigned to itself
and is being assiduously encouraged by the Blairs and Moragodas
of today, is that when Washington changes its policy everybody is
expected to faithfully follow.Ironically President Clinton who visited
China in 1998 came to the White House castigating George Bush, the
present president's father, for his China policy. Clinton saw George
Bush as appeasing the Beijing leadership that was responsible for
the Tiananmen Square killings of June 1989. In the intervening years
Clinton's policy on China changed perceptibly and he later entered
into a strategic partnership with one of the few surviving communist
countries in the world, a policy which Bush junior has again reversed.
The danger
in this hegemonistic, single centre of power role pursued by Blair
and Moragoda is that the international cop could easily become the
international bully as the world has just seen with unjust and illegal
military attacks on Iraq, killing of friend and foe, deprivation
of humanitarian needs and garnering of rehabilitation work for the
financial benefit of American companies. |