“The Axis of Evil”
While it is something I’ve commented on before and something of which any Marxist is keenly aware, I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the inability of people to distinguish between the practical/ financial/military goals that drive foreign policy (US or otherwise) and the moral/national/racial talk that underwrites such policy in the minds of ordinary people. Once, not too long ago, I remarked to someone that governments do not act for moral reasons. The actions of a government are always undertaken as a means to securing and sustaining its own power and wealth (which is to say the power or wealth of the ruling group). The suggestion was balked at.
Somehow, people really believe that the US always manages to be on the right side of every issue. As they see it, we’re genetically or racially predisposed to do the right thing. “At heart,” they say, “we’re really good people.” And then, there are the bad people - ‘the axis of evil.’ These people are genetically or racially predisposed to do the wrong thing. “I just don’t understand Muhammed’s willingness to kill himself and other innocent people. They just don’t value life the way we do. I’m glad Johnny Hero is over there killing the bad guys by the truck-load - and if he kills or tortures a few innocents by accident, well that’s part of war.”
Today, Dennis Kucinich held a hearing on the march to war with Iran. Soon enough, there will be airstrikes and these may or may not be “strategic.” Why is the US trying to start a war with Iran? Well, among other things, the Iranians are one of the strongest threats to American/Israeli hegemony in the region. A nuclear warhead would definitely even the playing-field. But, it should be kept in mind that the Iranians DO NOT HAVE a nuclear weapon. In fact, they’re not even close. Further, the belief that the Iranians would be more likely to proliferate than other currently existing nuclear powers is part of the same moralistic/racist/nationalist rhetoric mentioned earlier. “Can’t trust an Arab with a nuke!” (Nevermind that they’re Persian.) So, the issue about nuclear weapons capacity is a smoke-screen. The real issue is securing American economic and strategic interests. The same is true of North Korea (as I talked about in the last entry). For an interesting, chilling, and super-domestic example, check today’s Ky Kernel opinions page: www.kykernel.com.
If we’re to judge by an Op-Ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times, many of our elected leaders are actually motivated by this idiocy. In the piece (which can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?em&ex=1161316800&en=748252ff880c73b9&ei=5087%0A), columnist Jeff Stein reveals that many on the Hill don’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. According to Stein, Jo Ann Davis, a Republican congresswoman from Virginia (who sits on an intelligence subcomittee no less), had the following to say: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.” First of all, she clearly has no damn clue about what it means to be either a Sunni or Shia. (If you don’t know either here’s the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations.) But also, imagine if I said that Baptists are more “radical” than Methodists. The very terms of her false understanding of the religion are filled with the moralistic/racist/nationalistic rhetoric. And, she’s a policy maker!
Oh for the days of Realpolitik!
Foreign (and domestic…) policy is about securing the financial and military interests of the ruling class in a nation (whether or not they know it). All the other stuff - moral crusades, national or racial character, etc. - is propaganda. To me, this doesn’t even sound like an insight - it’s just common sense. What astounds me, is the number of people who don’t have the good sense to recognize the propaganda.
Brandon
November 8th, 2006 at 8:32 am
What I find interesting is that people don’t find it very hard — or at least, not nearly as hard — to adopt this viewpoint with regard to history. If you talk about Roman, Greek, old British, etc policy in this way, explaining each governmental action by reference to the interests of the power elites, it is not really seen as objectionable; it may even seem like common sense to the same people who balk at evaluating American policy in this way. I think this provides the best available route to getting people to see American policy in the same way. Place us in a continuous historical narrative (a la ‘People’s History of the United States’), and then you bring to the fore the dissonance between evaluating historical political entities this way while refusing to treat America similarly.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:20 am
y’all should really read this book called “privilege, power, and difference” by Alan Johnson. He talks about a lot of these same ideas. The small group that has a monopoly over all the power in our society has to rely on societal structure to maintain their power. The powerful rely on racism, sexism, prejudice, etc. as a way to divide people and keep them looking at each other rather than looking at the real problem–which is the fact that hierarchy of any form promotes inequality, promotes ignorance, promotes injustice. Of course most of the American people don’t have the sense to see through propaganda–if they did have the sense, we would, in many ways, not be America because that kind of hierarchy could not exist in the midst of an educated public.