“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Every power throughout history has operated in the international system in a state of anarchy. With every state or power acting in the interests of their security and survival and that there is no higher authority to monitor or control interactions between states. This is true, regardless of whether or not that power/state is liberal, socialist, democratic, authoritarian, theocratic, fascist, or any other ideology or value system that characterizes that power.
The United States, in response to 9/11 officially declared it’s leading in a global war on terrorism. The United States is a Liberal Democracy, which claims to be ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave” where individual freedom, equality of opportunity, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all are the benchmark values for the U.S. Therefore when it comes to foreign policy, it seeks justification for its policies based on its values. But as I mentioned before, a nation does not act in accordance with their values when it comes to international politics, but acts in its interests both in terms of security and economics.
Following the attack on the World Trade centre the United States invaded Afghanistan with the objective of overthrowing the Taliban, an extremist Islamist group who was protecting Osama Bin Laden, and his Al Quaeda terror network, believed to be responsible for the attack on 9/11.
Notice how at the time, the decision to invade Afghanistan was not dwelt over or challenged either in the U.S. or in the international community to the extent of the later decision to invade Iraq. With Afghanistan, the U.S. did not need to do much explaining, nor justifying for its decision to invade – the terrorist group responsible for the attack were there, the government are protecting them, therefore the objective is to invade, overthrow the regime, find Bin Laden and in the words of George W. Bush, heard all too often “we’ll smoke em out, and bring em to justice.”
Iraq was very different, with the lack of success in Afghanistan in finding Bin Laden, skeptics in America and Europe began to question the motives behind the invasion, as well as conspiracy theories suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job, and a pre-text and an excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq seeking to obtain full control of the countries oil and natural resources or other possible motives that were contrary to the claim of fighting terrorism. Hence why when it came to the decision to invade Iraq, the American people and the international community wanted more of a moral justification for the invasion of Iraq. And so the reason put forward for the occupation of Iraq was that of the threat that Sadaam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, a threat to his neighbours, his own people as well as guilty of crimes against humanity towards the Kurds, and was to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq.
Since the U.S went to war with Iraq, they have not found weapons of mass destruction, as well as skepticism on whether it is possible or even just to impose democracy, or even whether that was really an objective at all.
But around the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, many found it very hypocritical or ironic that in the past the Taliban were trained and allied with the Americans. Or would wonder why the Americans didn’t overthrow Sadaam Hussein properly at the end of the first Gulf war, or the fact that he at one time worked with the CIA.
None of this should come as a surprise, nor should one view these facts as ironic. They are for a start not viewed in their correct context. These events took place during the Cold War, where the United States and the Soviet Union competed for global domination. Like a game of chess they supported whoever was willing to join their bloc and be one of their pawns. This involved the democratic western nations allying with Islamist groups in the Middle East, supporting dictatorships in Latin America or the Communist Soviet Union allying with Arab nationalists. Both sides made allies with groups or regimes that held political views and policies opposed to that of their own, because they shared a mutual interest. That being that they both had a common enemy, and followed the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
There is absolutely nothing unusual about this phenomenon in international politics, one rarely hears anyone say “isn’t it ironic that the Americans fought against the Soviet Union but during the Second World War they were allies against Nazi Germany.” Of course they were allies, because Nazi Germany was more of a threat to the Soviet Union and to the United States than the U.S. and the Soviet Union were to each other, compelling them both to cooperate with each other for their own survival. Once the Second World War was over and Nazism was taken out of the equation, they once again would compete against one another. When the Cold War ended, the west and the Islamist movement it supported no longer had a common enemy, and the greatest threat to their interests left were each other.
Foreign policy of any government is not determined on the nations values, or justice, but on interest. Such policies are only just or moral if they happen to coincide with the nations national interest. One may ask the question in the case of the Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi occupied Europe, why the British turned away ships of Jews who had managed to escape Nazi occupied Europe from entering Palestine? Or why other governments did not stand up for their Jewish subjects against the Nazis, or not take them in when they could have done? Was Ernest Bevin an anti-Zionist because he disliked the Jews and loved Arabs, or was it more because he was concerned about Britain’s oil interests after they left the Middle East?
There are plenty of cases where governments are forced to make compromises on their values and principles for political considerations pertaining to their interests. Politicians through their rhetoric seek to justify their actions carried out in the national interest with that of the nations values in order to persuade the public that they are doing the right thing, particularly leaders of democratic nations. Many people living in these countries however would like to think that the rights, freedoms and values that they hold as reflected in their countries policies would also extend to that of others through their nations foreign policy. Unfortunately it doesn’t, every nation is out for its own survival and security, looking to become more powerful or the powerful nations doing whatever it needs to in order to remain in power.
There are instances where justice has prevailed. Whilst many may have argued that on moral grounds how could a free country like the U.S.A support such tyrants? It did so for the sake of fighting a more powerful and rival tyrant. In Soviet client states the U.S. would support coups to overthrow the pro Soviet rulers and vice versa. If we take the African American case for example, what was essentially a civil rights struggle, what brought about the progress in the achievements of the civil rights movement was when it too attempted to speak not as a threat to the establishment but in its name. Making use of the symbols and values of the United States of “Liberty and Justice for all.” Whereas at one point the struggle was meshed into a fear that the movement was allying itself with the Soviet Union and influenced by Marxist ideas.
“In the 1920s and the 1930s, leaders like Marcus Garvey, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Paul Robeson endeavored to establish an international Pan-African movement to fight against colonial rule and white imperialism. After World War II, with the advent of the cold war, the campaign for black internationalism sub-sided as “black leaders felt obliged to confirm their loyalty to the United States and to demonstrate that their civil rights campaign was not communist inspired at a time when many conservative Americans were ready to believe that communist instigation lay behind black demands for civil equality.””1
Following the success of the African Americans achieving equal rights, African Americans started to look upon themselves differently, whereas previously they had referred to themselves ‘Black Americans’ the shift from Black to African denoted like many other Americans an attachment to a previous homeland and people like as Irish, Greek or Italian Americans did, for example. African Americans began to identify with the experiences of Black Africans living under apartheid in South Africa, drawing a parallel between the treatment of Blacks in the United States and White Colonialism in Africa. In an essay by Martin Weil titled Can the Blacks do for Africa, what the Jews did for Israel? He wrote:
“To be successful, a black movement for reform of American policy toward Africa must be perceived as a vehicle for exporting American ideals. It must be an affirmation of black faith in the United States and demonstration of black ability to manipulate the fine structure of American politics within the astuteness and finesse of previous practitioners. Blacks as blacks may identify with Africa, but it is only as Americans that they can change United States policy in Africa. … To aid the revolution abroad, blacks must first join the establishment at home.”2
As the title of the above article notes that Jews too have successfully managed to fuse the values of the United States with that of Israel’s with the objective of greater cooperation between the two countries and aid to Israel. Pro Israel lobbyists in the United States will stress other similarities between the two countries, both are democracies (Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East), both are modern, western countries, both are immigrant nations embodying a pioneering spirit. But this is something that was traditionally more unique to the United States than to other countries in the past, the tradition of lobbying. The United States is an immigrant nation made up of many different groups, who unlike most European nations whose populations too may descend from immigrants from other lands, in the United States it was possible from an earlier stage to be both American and still retain ones former cultural/ethnic identity, such as Irish, Italian or Jewish. U.S. foreign policy has at times rather than based on the nations interest been formulated based on the internal influences of organized interest groups relative to whatever power each may have to influence foreign policy depending on whether or not for the U.S. government to do so results in great gains for the United States, if not gains to the United States, gains for the party or the candidate. Interest groups may contribute significantly to financing election campaigns or may compose a large demographic make up of the electorate and could pose a threat if their policies are not favorable to the group.
It is often under these circumstances that one finds foreign policy acting in what may not be seen as the national interest, and can occur as a result of various different lobby and pressure groups, whether they be Human rights activists, ethnic/national lobbyists, oil lobbyists, religious groups or any other interest group that seeks to shape a government policy in its favor.
This is not to say that when a nation forms a policy, as a result of the influence of a lobby that the policy is always contrary to the national interest. In the case of Israel and the United States, many feel that Israel is receiving a disproportionate amount of foreign aid and benefits from the United States compared to other U.S. allies who are much poorer. Of course there is the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in U.S. politics, which perhaps other countries do not have a lobby of supporters who are as organized in Washington, but one must be pretty naïve to think that this lobby is as powerful as some claim. Anti-Semitism is a factor in its influence. In the words of the director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman “the Jews are not as powerful as the Jews think they are nor as powerful as the anti-Semites think they are,” but the very fact that there is a perception of unprecedented power amongst the Jews has meant that poorer countries, with a bad image in the United States have sought to change their relationship with the U.S. through courting Israel, in exchange for the pro Israel lobby to make efforts to change American public opinion of their country through their perception of “Jewish control of the media” and their lobby’s ability to affect foreign policy.
Whilst Israel and the United States do share many common interests, Israel realizes that the geo-strategic advantage that Israel offers the United States in the long term is not enough. Israel has since its creation been an outlaw state in the International arena. Her very existence is still questioned and under threat, she therefore has had very little choice in choosing who her friends are. In the Middle East, Israel faced hostility from the entire Arab world. In the 1950’s Israel employed the Strategy of the Periphery, the objective being to form alliances with the neighboring countries to the Arab states, so that they could not channel all of their energies into attacking Israel and face pressure on their other borders.
Israel succeeded in forming alliances with Iran under the Shah, which put pressure on Iraq, with Turkey bordering Syria; these were the strongest of Israel’s strategic allies bordering her enemies. But Israel also managed to achieve cooperation with the Sudan, Morocco and Chad. In countries that have been hostile to Israel, Israel has supported and aligned herself with minority groups seeking either independence or domination over the other groups, including the Maronite Christians in Lebanon or the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Due to the fact that the Arab States were committed to Israel’s destruction, it was in Israel’s interest to prevent the spread of radicalization and Arab unity was a threat. We must remember that the prevalent and most threatening ideology to Israel at that time was not Islamism, but Pan-Arabism, looking to create one powerful Arab Empire out of the Arab states.
See above, former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halevy on the Alliance of the Periphery.
It is here where Israel and the United States meet and find that they have mutual interests and how Soviet penetration into the region was a threat to both of them. Arab nationalism, however, was not a threat to the United States. Particularly Saudi Arabia, America would have liked them to be a bit friendlier towards Israel, but given the choice between Israel and oil, America does not need to think hard about its decision. American intervention in the Middle East has been primarily a result of actions taken by other states that are not in America’s good books that pose a threat to Saudi oil. Israel and AIPAC weren’t powerful enough to block America’s decision to sell Saudi Arabia AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) surveillance planes in 1986 under president Reagan. The role that Israel plays is a very different role.
The Zionist movement aimed to give the Jews independence, to achieve equality as a nation amongst the nations. To change the condition of the Jew as middleman, to return to working the land, tilling the soil in his homeland. The movement was heavily influenced by Socialist ideals, manifesting themselves in the Kibbutz movement. But in reality the Utopian ideals and goals were not attainable at the time at least. That is not to say that Israelis and Arabs cannot achieve peace in the future but Chaim Weizmann’s and the vision of many British Zionists of the Zionist movement as a means to industrializing the Middle East, did not materialize for a number of reasons, in spite of the efforts of Zionist and Arab leaders.
The Arab world was largely made up of traditional feudal systems, where similar to Europe, religion was very important to their culture as well as a means for social control. The Arab elites did not like the Socialist, Atheist, Zionist Jews trying to liberate the Arab peasant’s, offering them work, improving their standard of living and talking about coexistence. All of this was a threat to the Arab elites, who would then make successful efforts to incite hatred of the Zionists, not to trust them and to fight them.
Israel was left vulnerable and isolated, with very few friends. Ben Gurion realized that Israel would not survive without the help of a Great Power. The Zionist movement had close relations with Britain and France as a means of achieving Israeli independence, but due to the decline of those powers in the wake of WW2, power shifted to the United States, although the Israel-U.S special relationship did not come to fruition until the late 1960’s Israel was supporting the interests of the western world in general before then.
Zionism’s dream became a nightmare, the Jew in exile was vulnerable to a hostile majority who disliked them for being different or because they ‘killed Christ’ and therefore Jewish survival came through making deals with monarchs and rulers in the Middle Ages, in return Jews carried out jobs to serve the ruling classes, such as the practice of Usury, which was seen as sinful by Christian society, but necessary and was a role reserved for the Jews to carry out as moneylenders, tax and rent collectors. These were professions that Jews had to carry out in order to be protected by those in power, they were not allowed to work the land and many other professions were closed to them.
Israel would soon occupy the same role on a global scale in the modern world that Jews occupied on a societal level in the middle ages. The ruling power, providing Israel with protection, through foreign aid, arms and diplomatic support would be the United States, the global superpower, and the role of Usury in the modern world to be carried out by Israel would be that of Arms dealing. Israel was to act as a proxy for the United States to provide weapons, training, advice, assistance and support to regimes and groups that the U.S did not want to be seen to be having anything to do with but would ultimately serve her interests. According to Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of Tel Aviv University:
“One could legitimately argue that there is a direct correlation between increases in U.S. financial aid to Israel since 1973 and the increase in Israel’s involvement in the Third World on the side of the United States. Can Israel be thought of as a “mercenary state”? Yes, in the sense of being kept by the United States in return for services provided. But because Israel does have its own motives for Third World activities, this is not the only explanation for what Israel has been doing. The relationship is clearly not just a matter of payment for services.”3
Israel has its own interests in Latin and Central American countries irrespective of U.S. involvement in countries such as Nicaragua under Somoza where Israel had been providing military aid since the 1950’s or to the Sandinistas in El Salvador, to Honduras where Israeli Galil rifles, Uzi Sub-machine guns and Israeli advisers to the air and ground forces were to be found as well as a long history of support for the regimes in Guatemala. Israel has invested greatly in supporting and sustaining brutal dictatorships, partly in cooperation with the United States and other countries in order to fight the Cold war as well as for Israel to create much needed allies, including regimes such as Alfredo Stroessner’s dictatorship in Paraguay where approximately 10% of Paraguay’s citizens have passed through its prisons. General Augusto Pinochet of Chile where Israel stepped in to provide weapons to his regime when President Carter stopped. Relations between Israel and Argentina gained strength following the overthrow of President Isabel Peron with the beginning of General Jorge Rafael Videla’s military rule in 1981. Israel supplied Bolivia under Garcia Meza following a successful coup with diplomatic and military aid amidst widespread international condemnation and sanctions (including from the Carter Administration).
Blue = Countries that have been supported militarily by Israel.
To view full lecture visit: youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIC7-DnLtg (Part 11 Stockwell addresses U.S. involvement in Angola with apartheid South Africa)
In Africa, Israel’s activities have been mostly geared towards preventing the process of de-colonization. The reason being that when more of the African nations gain independence many are likely to join a Third World bloc, diplomatically this would mean alignment with the Arab League. Much of the Third World perspective is hostile and resentful for historical oppression at the hands of the White Europeans. The Arabs had been creating their own narrative to the Arab Israeli conflict, where Israelis are portrayed as foreign invaders, exploiting and taking land from the natives, which was how particularly after 1967 and following Israel’s alliance with France and Britain during the Suez crisis in 1956, Black Africa came to view the Palestinians as the victims of a colonial power that they could identify with and was another front in the Third Worlds struggle against the West. When the first UN general assembly met there were only 51 members of the UN, most of whom were European nations, as more and more Third World nations became independent and joined they strengthened the Third World bloc, and as the record shows Israel has suffered as a result. If the United Nations were voting today on the Partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab State with the current UN members, it would not pass. The decline in power of the former colonial powers has increased the diplomatic leverage of the Arab and Third World resulting in Israel’s further isolation even from a growing number of Western nations taking on board oil interests.
Independence for many of Third World countries unfortunately meant strengthening Israel’s enemies. Israel therefore joined in the efforts with the United States, Britain, and other western countries to support the survival of Portugal’s former colonies in putting down liberation movements fighting the Portuguese forces in Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Sao Tome, Guinnea-Bissau and Principe. Israel supported Idi Amin’s Uganda; the success of the Raid on Entebbe came as a result of Israel playing a role in the building of the airport where the hostages were being kept. The former Belgian Congo, later known, as Zaire was another country where Israel had close military relations with, supporting Mobutu’s dictatorship along with China, Belgium, France, the U.S., Egypt and Morroco.
Not every regime Israel supported was tyrannical; she had very close relations with Ethiopia for some time as well as Kenya, where many Israeli’s would go for holidays which resulted in Kenya and Israeli interests in that country becoming a target for terrorism as became clear with the Mombasa attacks on the Israeli owned Paradise hotel in 2002 .
Blue = Countries that have been supported militarily by Israel.
Blue = Countries that have been supported militarily by Israel (1987).
Israel found a few very close allies who all shared a common experience of isolation and whose survival was threatened, Taiwan, South Korea, Rhodesia before it eventually became Zimbabwe and apartheid South Africa. Apartheid South Africa and Israel had a few things in common, both were western nations, both were fighting mutual enemies and were both facing a growing isolation in the international community. The position of desperation, mutual enemies and common allies not only in Africa but South Africa were supporting some of the same regimes in Latin America that Israel were, brought the two countries together and made each other more credible and reliable allies to each other that could be trusted compared to that of their relations with their other allies.
As mentioned earlier that the success of the civil rights movement in the United States escalated the movement against apartheid in South Africa on a global scale, leading to countries ending diplomatic relations with South Africa and boycotting of South African products, in Israel such activities did not occur, relations were unchanged between Pretoria and Jerusalem, and as was expected as well as cooperation with South Africa supporting Israeli interests, this was another example of Israel providing a service to the United States by proxy.
When one thinks of the U.S referring to Israel as a “Strategic asset” first coined in the late 1960’s by Henry Kissenger, the U.S. does give Israel a lot of support, but it is not in return for nothing. What Israel has given the United States is a bargain considering how much money the U.S. spends on defence in other regions, not to mention preserving the diplomatic standing of the United States for not having any direct involvement in many of these affairs as well as not having to position many if any troops in the region’s that Israel is covering. The U.S. contracts Israel and other countries to provide security and stability for the benefit of the western world led by America. This has been a far more cost affective way of maintaining western power and influence in the world than through traditional colonialism.
Returning to the question of Morality and Politics, most political ideologies emerge through a school of thought made up of philosophies that from the outset generally sought to create positive change. But no ideal that gains a large following amalgamating in a movement or party involved in political activity can escape the practical realities of power politics, and once in power will have to either compromise on their principles in order to survive or will be true to their principles and lose power.
The United States, which holds the values of freedom and democracy has had to ally with Tyrants, the Left wing socialists of today currently ally themselves with Islamists and people cannot understand why, it is just another marriage of convenience, they have a common enemy, and if they someday managed to bring down capitalism and America they too would begin to fight each other.
The pursuit of justice in the international system is not possible; those in power call the shots. And the powerful only have power because others do not. In a world where there is one major power, that power sets the global order according to their preference.
The Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire wrote of his concern that those who were oppressed could too, later come to oppress others. As was the case behind much of Socialist and Utopian Zionist thinkers, such as Martin Buber, believing that the Zionist mission was not about creating a normal nation like any other, but a special one that would not do unto others what the rest of the world had done to the Jews. It is common practice for the bystanders, the ordinary citizens to side with the perceived under-dog, it doesn’t always mean that the under-dog is in the right, nor does it mean that they will or will not act any differently towards their oppressors or others should they be given the opportunity to do so.
Those who side with the Islamists under the assumption that these people are oppressed by the west and that all they want is independence and equality will soon find that they are no different to any other power looking to expand. The breakthrough made for the Islamist movement came in 1979 with the Iranian revolution where since then the country has been run by the Ayatollahs. What has happened is that over a period of time starting in the late 1970’s, Israel has watched the decline of her major regional allies and partners in her peripheral alliance.
Iran is taken over by the Ayatollahs in 1979 and becomes the Islamic Republic of Iran; in 1980 Rhodesia becomes Zimbabwe, and the apartheid system in South Africa ends in 1994. Israel has failed to create a stable and friendly neighbor in Lebanon, her withdrawal from the south of the country in 2000 led only to the implanting of the Iranian backed Hezbullah on its border to continue firing rockets, from where the P.L.O left off. Iran is now exporting her ideology and revolution to all other Muslim and Arab countries, Lebanon has been her biggest success yet. Whilst Syria and Iran remain allies, it is just another marriage of convenience, President Assad and his regime are secular and he does not wish to see himself overthrown by Islamists at some point, the same is the case for Egypt and Jordan but fortunately for them, due to them having made peace with Israel they enjoy support from the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did help Israel’s position to an extent by eliminating Sadaam Hussein from power, the leader of the Arab League, but if the Americans leave these countries in the same way that Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza, it will be perceived as rewarding terrorism and the consequences could be disastrous, where extremists may take power, adding yet another gain to the Iranian led coalition and one with oil. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey then becomes highly critical of Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2009 as well as Turkish involvement with the Flotilla incident in 2010 has caused further tensions between the two countries. With Turkey struggling to enter the EU she has moved closer to allying the country with Iran.
On a more positive note Israel has made peace deals with Jordan and Egypt, in spite of the crumbling of her peripheral allies. It has now by default created the conditions where Israelis, the Arab states and even the rest of the world where we both face a threat that is more dangerous to all of us than each other and that is the threat of Islamism. The Arabs are currently not the biggest threat to Israel, significant progress has been made over the years in the Arab-Israeli relationship in spite of disagreements and unsuccessful attempts to reach agreements, but at least there are discussions, at least in principle we claim to want the same thing. Iran and her proxies Hamas, Hezbullah and Hamas have shown no signs or willingness to talk or to compromise.
If Iran manage to succeed in developing Nuclear weapons, she will no doubt threaten not only Israel, and not only the Arab states, but will seek first regional domination, control of the rich and natural resources wherever they may be, establish herself as a global superpower and compete against other powers, and particularly those who do not share her values, culture and beliefs and most likely turn the U.S. world order upside down.
Of course this does not mean that all Muslims are supporters of Islamism, many of them do not but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t groups living within western societies in Europe or America who would like to see Islamism spread beyond the borders of Muslim countries. This is a renaissance movement looking for a return to a Golden age for Islam. But this movement is no less colonial in nature to that of her opponents that she accuses of being so. Many of the people we refer to as Arabs today, weren’t Arab originally, they were of other ethnic groups who became arabized by invading Arab armies, such as the Copts in Egypt who remain the last of the Egyptian population to still retain their original Egyptian identity, or the Assad family in Syria who are Alawites, Maronite Christians in Lebanon, Druze in various countries, Armenians, Kurds and many other groups who live in the region, as well as a significant part of the Palestinian population who too can trace their origins back to Jewish roots. Many of these peoples speak Arabic as a result of having been arabized and converted to Islam centuries ago and remaining so in spite of the fall of the Arabs as a global power.
To view full lecture visit: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxkV0L829v8
These groups are currently not in power, and therefore speak in a language of freedom from foreign domination, national liberation and independence, but they too have imperial ambitions to interfere with the running of countries other than their own. Western societies are more open to freedom of speech and in spite of the declared war on Terror, supporters of terrorism can be found masquerading amongst Human rights activists calling on death to Jews and Americans and how Islam will prevail. The Islamists need not invade the west to make their civilizations and policies more favorable to them, they can come through immigration, or through utilizing their freedom of speech in these countries to convert the people to support their cause or even better to their religion. Melanie Philips wrote of how London had become the main base for launching such activities and named it Londonistan, and Europe would some day become Eurabia if it doesn’t wake up soon.
To view full interview visit: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcb2KG9Q5a0
Whilst I can understand perfectly why any peace loving person, no matter where they are from may find it uncomfortable that their governments may be doing things that go against their principles, but our efforts to govern and impose law and order in the international system has failed. The United Nations is a failed organization, which was set up to promote the interests of world peace, stability and protect human rights and serve justice and equality amongst nations. But it hasn’t, every nation in the diplomatic sphere is too voting and proposing motions, calling for inquiries and acting in accordance with their interests. It is made up of blocs, and nations are not voting in accordance with their judgment of right or wrong, but doing whatever they have to do to please those that they are dependent on. There is no higher authority to govern and impose meaningful sanctions for states that break international law. We need only look at Iran; it is not something of concern only to America and Israel, but the international consensus is that Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and in spite of the sanctions imposed on her, the Iranian regime continues in its nuclear ambitions. Or on a smaller scale, the UN peace-keeping forces and UN resolutions passed ensuring Israel’s security on its northern border, did not deter nor prevent Hezbullah from firing rockets indiscriminately into southern Israel. Or to create some balance here, there is no greater authority governing Israel and preventing the continuation of settlement building. The very fact that implementation of any resolutions is not possible and that there is no international law enforcement agency to ensure that conditions to agreements are adhered to by all parties, no state is willing to even if they are signatories of the UN charter, give up its natural right to defend itself and to act in its own self-interest.
The principles of rights and duties within social contract theory, discussed by philosophers such as Hobbes and Rousseau has succeeded on a national level. That human beings form a social contract with one another by giving up their natural rights in exchange for protection and legal rights by the state but have a duty as a citizen to obey the law, and gives authority to the state and the government voted in by the people. The sense of security offered to the citizen by the state is not present in the international system and that is why it operates in a state of anarchy.
In conclusion, there is no morality in politics unless it just so happens to coincide with ones national interest. And it is this reason why western governments did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur or why China gets away with its occupation of Tibet for example, because the cost of intervention does not result in more gains. As Jews we ask why the free nations did not make deals with the Nazi’s to trade Jews for goods when the Nazi’s were in a position of weakness during WW2? We hear responses such as – people were unaware of what was actually going on in the camps, or that saving Jews was not a good enough reason to strengthen the Nazi’s and that the first and foremost aim was to win the war.
Those who made efforts to do the right thing were individuals, who stuck their neck on the line in an unjust world. No matter how much any government or political leader will seek to justify their political actions with the ethical system of their society one must remember that they are first and foremost acting in what one hopes is the nations interest if not their own and not the nations values. Sometimes they do coincide, but often they do not, and their actions are motivated by the need for security through the ‘will to power’ in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche.
America is not seeking to spread democracy through its interventions abroad, what it is interested in is a regime that is favorable and acceptable to the United States, that will not challenge her but will serve her interests and accept her as the worlds superpower, if that state happens to be a democracy then that is just a bonus. But the U.S. does not want free countries if they are going to seek nationalization of the nations resources, not allow free trade and open their economies and close themselves off from the rest of the world or ‘vote for the wrong person’. Israel repeatedly acts out of necessity, how it only can to ensure its own survival, but not often how conventional wisdom would like her to act, in accordance with Jewish values. I don’t blame Israel for acting ruthlessly, nor do I think that any nation faced with comparable threats would do much better, but Israel is not a Mensch state, she has acted out of desperation, Israel’s unethical behavior is not always a result of choice, because if Israel turned the other cheek and didn’t play by the rules of international politics she would probably have ceased to exist a long time ago. It does not matter whether it is the Soviet Union, which too acted in a colonial manner in spite of its utopian values, or Arab countries acting in the name of Islam, they will all behave the same way but will justify their actions with their nations values. This is true even of their advocates and supporters.
Nations behave the same way as businesses do, it is often nothing personal, it is just business. Compassion, conscience and the desire to do the right thing, cannot be achieved through politics; it is up to individuals to work within and not against the system through the private sector. But should the power of the west decline as it has and we see the emergence of new rival, non-western powers the world will once again face a new hegemonic war. Given the choice between Americas brand of Liberal Democracy, Islamism or Chinese Communism, I know which one I prefer and under which Hegemon governing the world I am likely to survive and succeed in. If Europe and America some day were to decline as great world powers and be at the mercy of China, Iran, India or perhaps someday Africa, I wonder what compassion they may have for those less fortunate than them in the west, would there be individuals pressuring their governments to change their foreign policies exploiting Europe and America? Or would they hold a grudge and feel that we deserve everything we get, after how we treated them throughout history?
Alex Carson
Bibliography
1 Shain, Y. Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy. The Academy of Political Science:1994-1995.
2 Martin Weil, “Can the Blacks Do for Africa What the Jews Did for Israel?” Foreign Policy 15 (Summer 1974): 109.
3 Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1987) The Israeli Connection, Who Israel Arms and Why, Pantheon: Unit
