A BRILLIANT ESSAY ON THE U.S. AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

The author is noted historian Eric Bergerud who posted this on the H-Diplo Listserv in response to criticism from a Japanese historian regarding Bush administration foreign policy.

” I think Sashi Akuniyo expresses the perception of many in the industrial

world that distrust American foreign policy. I also think that the ideas

proposed by Akuniyo are based on some dubious assumptions and actually

illustrate why the U.S. and much of the industrial world are so widely

divided and are likely to remain so.

Akuniyo describes American policy as “paranoia-based.” Perhaps the future

will validate this description. Most Americans, however, to one degree or

another agree with Bush’s assumption that the U.S. is engaged in a war with

clandestine groups and a small number of “rogue states.” The major fear is

that these two might get together and deliver a devestating strike on the

United States.

Is this paranoia? In the past twenty years hundreds of American servicemen,

diplomats, agents, businessmen, tourists and bystanders have been killed or

maimed by the forces of what Christopher Hitchins so accurately calls

“theocratic fascism.” In the past decade there has been a serious attempt to

bring this violence directly to U.S. The attacks of 9/11 were preceeded by

an earlier bombing of the World Trade Center. American agents confinscated a

van filled with explosives crossing the Canadian border prior to New Years

2000. And to sweeten the mood in the U.S., North Korea has recently

suggested that it might export atomic weapons.

Other nations in the industrial world can hope that conventional

deterrence and better police work can prevent or greatly limit further

terrorist catastrophes. Washington must look at the situation differently

because American leaders believe that if deterrence fails it will be the

citizens of an American city that will pay the price. This perception

makes “risk assessment” a much more complex enterprise in Washington than

in, say, Brussels.

Akuniyo also argues that Americans should have “an intelligent loyalty to

the same moral code that states expect their own citizens to live by.” With

all due respect this exactly what American citizens do not want. In the

pursuit of terrorist groups, most Americans fully support the Bush

administration’s policy of “gloves off.” In practice this means a massive

and expensive clandestine operation headed by CIA in collaboration (often

through bribes) with any government that wants to help out. We have

assassinated small numbers of bin Laden’s group and no doubt would kill more

given the chance. The police powers of the FBI and others have been

increased in the U.S., and American police agencies previously discouraged

from working abroad now do so very openly. Civil libertarians in America may

complain bitterly about all of this (perhaps with reason), but these actions

appear to be broadly supported by the American population. The blows

seemingly given to bin Laden’s operations in the past year are viewed as a

vindication of this approach. Now, if one views the U.S. as in a war, the

government’s response is understandable, even laudable. If the struggle

against terror is viewed as an exercise in normal diplomacy then America,

not bin Laden (or Kim Jong Il) is the threat to world peace.

We must also consider the wars fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first

received more governmental support than the second, but was fiercely

opposed by “progressives” throughout the West. (This fact has been

conveniently forgotten by many when the Taliban fell with so little

effort.) Recent hostilities in Iraq found the U.S. nearly isolated in the

world public. I have recently argued that it is far too early to judge the

impact of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. However, although the violence

of that war was far less than many of its opponents predicted, and the

fall of Saddam appears to be little mourned in Iraq (regardless of how

Iraqis view the U.S.), the moral ambiguities inherent in war were well

illustrated. Akuniyo notes that “It is understandable and obvious why the

leader/ general/ soldier/ industrialist don’t want to live by any code –

particularly ones that could hang them tomorrow for what they do today.”

In general I suppose this is true. It certainly explains why no American

Senate is going to ratify the ICC. There are already attempts in Belgium

to indict Rumsfeld, Franks and others. The Pentagon believes that the

“higher moral standards that are naturally emerging in a connected world”,

observed by Akuniyo, and embraced by many in the industrial world, cannot

be made to suit a fierce world.

It seems to me that many citizens of the industrial world would like the

U.S. to be the friendly cop on the block that will do nothing unless called

upon to redress some obvious wrong that the remainder of the industrial

Page 1 of 2 | Next page