US Foreign Policy
Today's column by Jon Carroll in the San Francisco Chronicle issues a fairly typical liberal criticism of Bush's foreign policy. In his column, Carroll contrasts contemporary US actions with the supposedly halcyon days of yore. He writes:
Like many liberals, Carroll focuses on the crimes of the Bush administration and then turns a blind eye to the reality that imperial foreign policy has always been a bipartisan reality. Bush may be more brazen about it than some, but there is no qualitative change in foreign policy. In fact, the Democrats have always been keen to support imperialism themselves. Kerry's foreign policy, for example, is little different from Bush's, and in fact Kerry was labeled "the newest neocon" by columnist William Safire for precisely that reason. In 2002, Democrats were eager to line up behind Bush's war threats against Iraq, and they are now doing the same thing against Iran.
The reality is that the crimes of US imperialism can be laid squarely on the shoulder of both parties of the governing duopoly.
...once upon a time, we were the leading internationalist nation in the world. We strongly supported the formation of the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague, the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We were serious about promoting humane behavior around the world. We preferred peace to war. We did not automatically assume that all foreigners were out to get us.One has to wonder what time in history Carroll thinks he is referring to. While it is true that the US has often promoted various international organizations when it served US imperial interests, it is also true that the US has always acted unilaterally against other nations whenever it felt like it, in order to promote "America's interests" (which, of course, meant the interests of US capitalism). From coups that overthrew foreign democracies and replaced them with dictatorships (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and Chile 1973), to military invasions (Dominican Republic 1964, Grenada 1983), to unilateral assertions of supremacy over other sovereign nations (the Platt Amendment), to wars of aggression (Vietnam, Iraq), the story has been the same.
Now what we care about is "defending America's interests."
Like many liberals, Carroll focuses on the crimes of the Bush administration and then turns a blind eye to the reality that imperial foreign policy has always been a bipartisan reality. Bush may be more brazen about it than some, but there is no qualitative change in foreign policy. In fact, the Democrats have always been keen to support imperialism themselves. Kerry's foreign policy, for example, is little different from Bush's, and in fact Kerry was labeled "the newest neocon" by columnist William Safire for precisely that reason. In 2002, Democrats were eager to line up behind Bush's war threats against Iraq, and they are now doing the same thing against Iran.
The reality is that the crimes of US imperialism can be laid squarely on the shoulder of both parties of the governing duopoly.
Good post.
I wonder if Iraq would be a popular war, if Clinton led it, at the time of his scandal?
Thank you for your contribution to the Chavez discussion at my blog. Whenever I post on him, I get a hot discussion. Read my first posts sometime.
Posted by
Frank Partisan |
7:40 PM
Post a Comment