Mar 4, 2014

Foreign Policy Hypocrisy Pt. 2

In my last post, I discussed a recent comment by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy.  An explanation from Michael Rozeff on the LRC blog entitled "How Does the U.S. Choose Its Friends and Enemies?" discusses the motivators which drive foreign policy in the US to take such awkward positions:

"There is no need to be puzzled by such seeming inconsistencies as the U.S. sometimes supporting terrorists and other times fighting them; or the U.S. being anti-Nazi and yet supporting at times right-wing governments, dictators and death squads. There is no need to be puzzled by the support of democracy in one country and paying no attention to it in another or even undermining it. There is no need to be puzzled by the U.S. seeming to support the aspirations of one people while ignoring the rights of another people, including American citizens. There is no need to be puzzled by the immense hypocrisies of U.S. officials. The reason for all of this is that ideology is being made to serve the underlying purpose of the empire’s maintenance and expansion.

"...In the case of the U.S. empire, this purpose is hidden by the fact that territorial acquisitions are no longer its prime means. The U.S. gave up the Philippines and Cuba. It made no attempt to absorb a defeated Germany or Japan. Instead, it used other means. This purpose is also hidden under an immense amount of ideological fictions about American exceptionalism, the self-determination of peoples, spreading democracy, and so on."

Indeed, these fictions lull the mulcted taxpayer into a state of acquiescence or- even worse- support for intervention in matters that have no bearing or impact on their life.  The media plays a significant role in propagating this mentality by offering heart breaking stories which play on the viewer's inherent desire to "help their fellow man"- and implying or expressly stating that the US government is the only vehicle for action against such atrocities.  Such meddling would be considered absolutely unacceptable if the roles were reversed, with another country intervening in the internal affairs of the US- a point brilliantly made by Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential run.  The revulsion felt when considering a government thousands of miles away dictating the affairs of the US should give patriotic boobus americanus pause before advocating interventions by the US government of the affairs of others.  In a satirical article drawing this logic to its ultimate conclusion, Murray Rothbard's proposition was to "Invade the World":

"We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and 'human rights,' and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of 'freedom,' 'free trade,' 'multiculturalism,' and 'expanding democracy.'
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!"

The globally hegemonic philosophy of US government policy-makers (at the behest of those who seek to gain from foreign policy decisions) makes hypocrisy a matter of course- as this philosophy extends the right to intervene to the US, while the idea of a foreign power controlling the US would be considered an outrage!  As Rozeff points out, it is not surprising to see illogical and counter-intuitive positions following from such a foundation.

No comments:

Post a Comment