 |
Globalization
and the Future of Western Intervention
|
|
As a four-day international conference on intervention wound down yesterday in Surrey, embattled British leader Tony Blair found out the hard way that he will not get to play emperor. Blair's stirring call for a comprehensive, internationally-accepted rule guaranteeing intervention on a potentially massive scale was roundly rejected by his fellow "progressive" leaders from countries like Germany, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. As an opportunity for the sinking prime minister to exert some influence on the world stage, the conference was a failure. But the fact that it even occurred offers plenty of food for thought regarding the future of intervention in an increasingly volatile and unpredictable age. A Disastrous Tactic As public confidence in the Prime Minister's stewardship continues to plummet, amid fears that Blair lied about the WMD's and is nothing more than George Bush's lapdog, he seems desperate to associate himself with those leaders not contaminated by the plague that is Iraq. However, this is proving difficult for the one leader who, after his American counterpart, has been most damagingly associated with an increasingly sketchy invasion. Indeed, after being roasted repeatedly for his slavish devotion to President Bush, and after suffering furious attacks on the home front, one would think that Tony Blair might pipe down on a bit on the intervention front. Amazingly, however, precisely the opposite has occurred. Perhaps taking another page from Bush's book, the British prime minister seems to believe that the best defense is a good offense. For, despite coming under increasing fire for alleged deception of the British people, Blair at the conference (instead of displaying a little much-needed humility) proclaimed the need for armed intervention against any and all "failing states." Hey, is he trying to "out-Dubya" Dubya or what? The End of Sovereignty… On Sunday, the Observer reported – prematurely, as it turned out – that Blair's grand decree would be accepted: "…(Blair) and other Left-wing national leaders …will issue a joint communiqué and, according to a draft leaked over the weekend, it will claim that the international community has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of failing states. "The key section said: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.' "Another section justifies this stance on the grounds that, just as individuals have rights and responsibilities, nations do too. "'The right to sovereignty brings associated responsibilities to protect citizens,' the draft said." The report containing this momentous passage was not new. Though dusted off only recently, it was finished in December 2001. The project was funded by the Canadian government with the input of 12 "experts" – including Imperialist extraordinaire, Michael Ignatieff. …But Not Just Yet Now, however much the would-be emperor desired such an endorsement, by Monday it became clear that his fellow "left-leaning" peers did not, and that this "key section" would be chopped: "…amid fears that it could have provided justification for the war in Iraq and give(n) carte blanche to Western powers to intervene in countries around the world. The final document instead stressed 'the crucial importance of international co-operation in responding to humanitarian crises.' It said: 'We are clear that the UN Security Council remains the sole body to authorise global action in dealing with humanitarian crises of this kind.'" This compromise solution – sure to have no effect on the Bush Administration – comes as yet another blow to Blair's credibility. It showed clearly that his input is fast becoming irrelevant. Yet with almost Rumsfeldian eloquence, Blair continued to insist: "…the real issue is how do we, in circumstances where there is brutal repression of people by a particular regime, how do we offer them support and protection and what are the rules that govern that, because people want to know that they are operating in a system with rules." Huh? Which people? What system? Whose rules? And who's meant by "we"? This magisterial statement leaves an awful lot up to interpretation. Yet it's safe to say that Blair is suggesting that the "international community" (i.e., the West), as vanguard of an allegedly democratic, liberal system, should enact its rules (in the form of prohibitions, ultimatums and threats) on the rest of the world's population – who, though they may not know it yet, are all included in the royal "we." As a recipe for future interventions, the "Blair doctrine" is not particularly remarkable. But since it is a sign of the times, we should strive to understand it. The Zeitgeist: Globalization and the Logic of Today's Interventionism Forget about the banal political realities behind Blair's squirming. We must seek to explain his rationalization in another way. The victory of violent Western intervention today is a logical conclusion of the liberal Wilsonian doctrine of diplomacy. It implies that since specific universal values are (or should be) shared by all people, these values therefore must be extended – by force, if necessary – to all people. The unfolding situation – all war, all the time – is the predictable correlative of an imposed value system which must destroy that which is different. Although I rarely cite philosophers in this space, acclaimed French thinker Jean Baudrillard offers some compelling reflections on precisely this topic: the West's uniform imposition of a global system of values, and the ramifications that this has for world peace, intervention and terrorism. This article, I should start off by saying, is not merely some Leftist rant against globalization. Baudrillard just analyzes the current world situation and draws relevant conclusions. Indeed, he has little faith in the "direct action" sorts who are allowed to protest and break things under the protection of their so-called oppressors: "…who can defeat the global system? Certainly not the anti-globalization movement whose sole objective is to slow down global deregulation. This movement's political impact may well be important. But its symbolic impact is worthless. This movement's opposition is nothing more than an internal matter that the dominant system can easily keep under control." Tolerance – Within Reason The "dominant system" of the West, avers Baudrillard, cannot tolerate other civilizations. I might add that there is always something comical about other forms of society, for us Westerners. Vividly evoking the imperialistic "white man's burden," we patronize those who are different from us. When watching some television documentary about strange people in strange lands, we celebrate our own breadth of vision at being able to mentally assimilate those face-painted Indians or Mongolians in funny hats. We marvel at how technology can bring the entire globe straight into our living room – and that we can therefore understand it. Yet this logical jump – that having a global view automatically means we also have global understanding – is proving deadly. Indeed, the natives, generally entertaining when well-behaved, don't seem so nice at all when they become restless and turn on us. And especially, when they use one of our own products – be it a bomb, a chemical or even an airplane. Globalization tends to bite back. However, we seldom understand why these "others" might think or act as they do. The technical sophistication of our globalizing world far exceeds the intellectual sophistication with which we approach different cultures. Narcissistically, we assume that everyone is like us, that everyone thinks like us and has the same aspirations as us. If it seems that they do not, it's simply because they just don't know it yet. Globalization has merely allowed the West to exult in its deadly hubris on a much larger and more destructive scale. Threats to Be Assimilated or Destroyed In the end, the West cannot even explain other societies except as threats to be eliminated. For Western globalization, "any reactionary form is virtually terrorist" in its very existence. Baudrillard gives a concrete example: "… look at Afghanistan. The fact that, inside this country alone, all recognized forms of 'democratic' freedoms and expressions – from music and television to the ability to see a woman's face – were forbidden, and the possibility that such a country could take the totally opposite path of what we call civilization (no matter what religious principles it invoked), were not acceptable for the 'free' world. The universal dimension of modernity cannot be refused. From the perspective of the West, of its consensual model, and of its unique way of thinking, it is a crime not to perceive modernity as the obvious source of the Good or as the natural ideal of humankind. It is also a crime when the universality of our values and our practices are found suspect by some individuals who, when they reveal their doubts, are immediately pegged as fanatics." Through its portentous encounter with globalization, writes Baudrillard, the West has cheapened and homogenized the very same universal values which it has sought to export to the rest of the world, since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson: "…the mission of the West (or rather the former West, since it lost its own values a long time ago) is to use all available means to subjugate every culture to the brutal principle of cultural equivalence. Once a culture has lost its values, it can only seek revenge by attacking those of others." Yet instead of countenancing our own vengeful viciousness, we portray ourselves as almost pious; in Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq, the dizzying justification of "bombing them in order to save them" is really believed by many "patriotic" sorts. For Baudrillard, this is a manifestation of what he calls the "violence of the global." The West's sometimes harsh methods of assimilation beget a reactionary violence from the few truly different, singular modes of civilization left in the world. On September 11th, it was militant Islam. But it may come from different quarters in the future. Endless Intervention, Endless War Although the French thinker does not say so explicitly, this century is going to be one of endless intervention and endless war. It will exhaust itself either with the complete subjugation of the non-Western holdouts, or in symbolically destructive acts against the Western global system. Or both. For when a dominant civilization cannot tolerate otherness on an intellectual and symbolic level, and when it is too strong to be attacked by conventional means, the logical outcome is terrorism. The attacks of 9/11 caused great destruction in terms of human death and material damages. But they destroyed neither the global financial system nor the American military command. With such a gaping disparity between combatants, the terrorists could not have hoped to win a "military" victory; what they did strategically achieve was a symbolic humiliation of a civilization that had long held them in contempt. The visceral revenge for that psychological trauma was as terrible as it was swift. And, as the blood-soaked sands of Iraq now testify, it is not over yet. In the Absence of Values, Consensual Legislation However, since the American retaliation has been largely driven by such symbolic longings, a kind of desperation, an intellectual void has set in. Think of the confused, divergent initiatives of Blair and Chretien in Surrey. There they tried to prove the continued value of ideals that are for all practical purposes dead, and to prolong the illusions of multilateralism and tolerance in an increasingly mono-hegemonic world: "…Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says the world needs a consistent policy on when nations can meddle in another country's affairs. "He made the remarks Saturday at the start of a four-day conference in Britain. "Chrétien's main example was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq this spring. He said in March he was against the idea of forcing regime change: 'If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?' "'We need a mechanism that has to be developed when we have that type of situation when local (governments) really abuse … the human rights of the citizens, that we cannot stay there and do nothing,' Chrétien told the conference." In other words, what the Canadian leader is attempting is to do what Bush could not – that is, to sanitize and humanize military intervention by codifying it. Through such ideas, the "progressive governance" bunch have shown that they're really just interested in progressive bureaucracy. Consensually-legislated intervention is reminiscent of the equally asinine post-WWII "war crimes" laws, which seem to make some kind of sport out of war – a fine thing to do, if played fairly. Undiminished Dreams of Empire However, to the question that Chretien posed publicly, regarding how wide the terrain, the man who would be king had a private answer: "…Mr. Blair's critics might take the declaration as evidence that Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have not diminished his appetite for military intervention against tyrannical regimes. "In a recent book about the Iraq war, he is quoted as saying in private: 'They (critics of the war) ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot? "'Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can, you should.'" It's sad, really, to hear the flailing helmsman of a long-dead empire wistfully admit, "I don't because I can't." Egging on his American counterpart ("but when you can, you should"), Blair ends up sounding something like the proverbial Little League father who seeks to relive his athletic career vicariously through his child. Indeed, the formerly cautious President Bush seems to be warming to his new role, as the upcoming Liberia adventure abundantly shows. With time, even the brain trust pushing for a Colonial Office may be heeded. Yet it is the president's ill fortune – and not, emphatically, his heavenly ordained mission – that accomplishing far-flung interventions in an age of globalization is becoming increasingly arduous, confusing and deadly.
|
Previous articles by Christopher Deliso on Antiwar.com Globalization
and the Future of Western Intervention Occupational
Hazards of War Without End McNews
Comes Gunning for Greece The
Albanians and the State Washington's
Confused Macedonia Policy 'The
Yanks Have Really Screwed Up in Iraq' Wolfowitz
in Skopje – What Next for Macedonia? America's
'Conservative' Christians – and the Middle East's Occupation
by Bad Example Iraq's
Cultural Catastrophe – and Ours Has
America Gone Commie? The
Ends of Alliance in Iraq Washington's
Hubris Invites a Fatal Iraqi Misjudgment Suing
in England, Vacationing in France: the Misplaced Patriotism of Richard
Perle Top
Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War Disaster
Par Extraordinaire? Almost
Spot On: The British Critique of American Newspapers So
Many Fronts, So Little Sense Poisonings
or Power Plays? Terrorist
Bombing in Kumanovo, 1 Dead The
Instability Myth, Free Markets and Macedonia's Future The
Interview That Never Happened The
Price of Paranoia The
Trouble with Turkey Greater
Albania: a Place, or Just a State of Mind? Explosion
Rocks Macedonian Parliament
Baghdad
Braces for War Envisioning
Peace in the Shadow of War Seducing
Intervention: Nobody's
Fault But Their Own? In
European
Intelligence: The US Betrayed Us In Macedonia A
Georgian Gaffe Heavy
Fighting Erupts in Aracinovo on First Anniversary of NLA's 'Free Zone' Kodra
Fura and Macedonia's Emerging War Kosovar
Terrorists Renew Attacks on Macedonia Macedonia
On War Footing Over Kosovo Border Provocations Macedonian
Tortured In Tetovo Village, As Gang War Rages Macedonia:
A Nation of Ingrates Mujahedin
In Macedonia, or, an Enormous Embarrassment For the West How
Not To Capture Osama bin Laden Whispers
of Folly and Ruin Blurring
the Boundaries in Macedonia When
The Terror Goes Down To Georgia: Some Thoughts On The Caucasus Imbroglio
In
Macedonia, Terrorism Remains the Law But
Would It Be an Evil Axis? Economics
and Politics in Macedonia: an Interview with Dr. Sam Vaknin Macedonians
and the Media Secrets
of the Blue Café On
the Front Lines in Tetovo Interview
with Ljube Boshkovski A
Connection Between NATO and the NLA? The
Legacy of War: Kidnapped Persons in Macedonia The
Day's Disturbances and Developments in Macedonia
Crisis in Macedonian Government –
Albanian Hackers Deface Macedonian Website
Partition: Macedonia's Best Lost Hope? Important
Notice to Readers of the Macedonia Page Selective Democracy Comes
to Macedonia Macedonia Capitulates With a Friend Like Pakistan Afghan-Americans Oppose Interventionism,
Seek Unity The Afghan
Quagmire Beckons Suddenly, Terrorists
Are Everywhere Turkey's Eclipse: Chechnya Comes Home
To America A Quiet Battle in the Caucasus:
Georgia Between Russia & NATO Central Asia: The Cauldron
Boils Over Bin Laden, Iran, and the KLA The Macedonian Phrase-Book:
Writing NATO's Dictionary of Control Barbarism and the Erasure
of Culture Macedonian Endgame: The Sinister
Transformation of the Status Quo Christopher Deliso is a freelance writer and Balkan correspondent for Antiwar.com, UPI, and private European analysis firms. He has lived and traveled widely in the Balkans, southeastern Europe and Turkey, and holds a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University. In the past year, he has reported from many countries, including Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Greece, the Republic of Georgia and the Turkey-Iraq border. Mr. Deliso currently lives in Macedonia, and is involved with projects to generate international interest and tourism there. |