The Rise of the “New”
Far Right Foreign Policy
Peter Baofu, Ph.D.
pbaofu@yahoo.com
Contrary to the belief of many contemporaries,
the emerging Bush Doctrine in the 2000’s represents the rise of the new
Far Right foreign policy, which in four important ways (as explained below)
are comparable to Nazi and Fascist ideologies, although there are some
fundamental differences between the two groups, so the word 'new' in the
title is suggestive.
Surely, many officials in the Bush administration
are not members of any Far Right political parties, but their
ultra-conservative post-Cold War ideology in foreign policy serves them well
on the new Far Right wing of the political spectrum. After all, Bush’s
values do not represent those of the amazingly diverse American population
but reflect well the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party, and
more than half of the American voters did not vote for him in the 2000
presidential election (since Al Gore won by popular votes); besides, quite a
number of those who voted for him largely did so by default (because they
disliked Gore).
PREEMPTIVE MILITARISM
The emerging Bush Doctrine in foreign policy,
especially after the September 11 attacks in 2001, is increasingly bent
towards a willingness to use brute (military) force as an instrument of
conflict resolution in international affairs, even when the danger to
national security may not be concrete but merely perceived and even when the
military action may be solely pro-active, not reactive. Bush, in his
graduation speech at West Point in June 2002, said: “Our security will
require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for
preemptive action when necessary….” And this preemptive militarism is
reinforced in his administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), which
was released in September 17, 2002.
But a controversial figure behind this new
strategy is an ultra-hawkish government official, Paul Wolfowitz, now the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, who, back in 1992 when serving as the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy, first drafted a memo for a preemption
strategy for America to play in the post-Cold War, titled “Defense Planning
Guidance.” In this memo, Wolfowitz forcefully advocated an ultra-hawkish
foreign policy for American preemption and hegemony in the post-Cold War
era, which requires America to act alone, even if the rest of the world does
not agree, given the sole superpower status of the U.S., as he wrote that
“the U.S. should be postured to act independently when collective action
cannot be orchestrated…[to] end nations.” And Seyom Brown’s recent book “The
Illusion of Control” provides a detailed account of this new found
militarism in American foreign policy.
The Nazis and the Fascists, by comparison, were
well-known for their militarism (the use of force) abroad, be it preemptive
or reactive. Part of their ideologies to arouse their own peoples for
militarist adventures in the 1930’s was to tirelessly glorify the moral
virtues of struggle, fight, discipline, courage, and heroism for the defense
of their own countries and to masterfully exaggerate (and even shamelessly
fabricate) the dangers of foreign enemies. In the invasion and occupation of
Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has used the same (shameless) tricks;
for instance, Bush, in
his speeches to the U.S. troops, constantly praised their moral virtues in
the war efforts (e.g., fight, discipline, courage, and heroism) and
brilliantly made up evil stories about Iraq for public consumption (e.g.,
the scaring weapons of mass destruction, even though many of the weapons
have yet to be found after the fall of the Iraqi regime, and the lie about
the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, as reported in the June 22 issue of The
Washington Post).
WORLD HEGEMONY
But preemptive militarism is not the final goal.
An important aspect of the “new” Far Right foreign policy is to achieve
American hegemony in the world. In his graduation speech at West Point in
June 2002, Bush clearly stated that, “America has, and intends to keep,
military strengths beyond challenge.” And Wolfowitz equally advocated, in an
unequivocal way, in his memo for a preemption strategy for hegemony, that
“our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.”
By the same logic, both Hitler and Mussolini, as
this needs no elaboration, were notoriously known for their thirst for world
domination, by peaceful means if possible (remember Hitler’s manipulation of
Chamberlain’s appeasement policy?) and by brute force if necessary (recall
his invasion of Eastern Europe and Russia?). Likewise, in less than two
years, the Bush administration had invaded and occupied two countries and
threatened others.
Of course, there are some differences between the
two groups. Bush and Wolfowitz are more interested in spreading the gospel
of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party, whereas Hitler and
Mussolini were more focused on their own versions (e.g., the glory of Rome
for Mussolini and the triumph of the Aryan race for Hitler). But for the
victims, the world would be much better without the two forms of hegemonies.
For the conquerors, on the other hand, the domination of the world for their
own interests (e.g., oil, lucrative businesses, and geopolitics in the
Middle East in the present context) is really what they want – the
propaganda aside.
ANTI-CIVIL LIBERTIES
At home, in the name of national security, the
Bush administration has gone far to suppress different civil liberties
(e.g., due process) against those who are suspected, whether rightly or
wrongly, of associating with, or working for, foreign enemies, in whatever
ways. In the last two years, many of Middle Eastern ethnic descent are the
primary victims, as are those who show sympathetic support of their views.
In the parlance of the administration, anyone who vocally disagrees with the
war efforts and openly criticize the administration can be treated as,
“giving comfort to the enemy” and can be subject to legal persecution. The
oppressive power of this political correctness can be pervasive. After all,
Attorney General John Ashcroft is no friend to civil liberties, as the
American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to him in 2001 about this
concern.
Similarly, both Hitler and Mussolini were not
kind to those who opposed their imperial militarism in the 1930’s. In many
cases, they just “eliminated” them. Surely, there is a major difference
between the two groups. Hitler enjoyed using the gas chambers, among other
methods. But Bush preferred the smart bombs (which can penetrate into any
bunkers to kill the enemies and, unfortunately, civilians as collateral
damages) and the legal tricks (which circumvents the Geneva Conventions with
immunity), just to cite two instances.
NATION-STATE ELITISM
Lastly, the Bush administration, in its search
for imperial hegemony, does not accept that nation-states are sovereign
equals, so the strong has the right to attack the weak if necessary. For
this reason, both Bush and Blair went so far as to violate international law
in attacking and occupying Iraq, since, as I already wrote in “When
Democracy Becomes Tyrannical” (The Chase, 04/28/03), “in accordance to the
UN Charter, all member states (which include the U.S. and Iraq) are
sovereign equals and no interference in the internal affairs of a member
state is allowed by another member state. The only exception in the UN
Charter is the clause for self-defense, as a threat to world peace, but even
here the interference (by force in this case) must be approved by the UN
Security Council. But the U.S. did not obtain the approval of the UN
Security Council, and many of the major members (including some U.S. allies
like France and Germany, and others like Russia and China) disapproved the
military action. And for the first time since the Vietnam War, there have
been unprecedented protests against the war, not just at home but also
around the world.” It is no wonder that the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
said several weeks ago that the U.S. invasion constituted a violation of
international law.
The reason is simple enough, since the U.S.
considers itself as the dominant superpower and does not accept others as
its own equals, and, for this fact, it is also easy to understand why the
U.S. has never accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
to persecute any American nationals (be they U.S. soldiers, officials, or
citizens) of legal wrongdoings abroad, whereas the U.S. does not hesitate to
forcefully bring any foreign nationals (whether foreign heads of state,
officials, or citizens) for any suspected wrongdoing to the U.S. soil for
persecution. And the Bush administration reiterated this elitist position in
June 2003, which irked many abroad, as reported in The New York Times
(06/11/03). As Paul Roberts once commented, “Nothing more clearly
illustrates the hypocrisy of our position. We ignore international courts,
but when it suits us we use them to punish those we dislike.”
This elitism in foreign policy is not alien to
the Fascists and Nazis either, since both Hitler and Mussolini seldom
intended to have their own nationals punished for crimes against other
countries or peoples (be they about war crimes, crimes of aggression,
genocide, and crimes against civilians) by any courts abroad. After all, for
Hitler, the Aryan races are superior to the Jews, blacks, gypsies, gays, and
others. And for Bush, Americans are superior to foreigners (especially,
though not exclusively, those associated with the “Axis of Evil,” since
“they are evil people,” as remarked in some of his speeches).
For these four reasons, a “new” Far Right foreign
policy has slowly emerged in the international arena. The Far Right, as a
group, are quite diverse, of course, and broad generalization about them can
be risky, since they may not love each other, anymore than two humans,
simply because they are human, have to love each other. Yet, there are some
similarities which put them in the same political category of
ultra-conservatism, and the four traits here in foreign policy are
illustrative enough.
History can repeat itself, albeit in different
ways, if the lessons of WWII are not learned. The difference is that this
time, the new tyranny is formed in the glorious name of liberal democracy
and market capitalism, not Fascism nor Nazism. But William Shakespeare once
said, “What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would
smell as sweet.” So, in the present context, the propaganda aside –, a
tyranny (or world domination) by any other name could still be as oppressive
to the victims, though the conquerors would no doubt enjoy the brute
triumph.
So the world needs to wake up, before it is too
late.
Note: Many
of the citations here are from Peter Baofu's book The Future of
Capitalism and Democracy (MD: The University Press of America, 2002).
