| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| The US Military - A Tactical & Strategic Crisis - Andijan: Why We Must Look Beyond Double-Standards |
05 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
The duplicitous nature of US foreign policy demonstrates that its decision making process is directed by something more fundamental than simple maxims about promoting democracy, encouraging political reform or supporting much needed allies, even if tyrannical, as part of its war on terror. While it is all too common to hear accusations of US double standards and hypocrisy, such charges deal only with obvious outcomes and fail to consider that US foreign policy decisions are based on a philosophical premise deeply rooted in western liberal political theory. Contradictory policy from one region to the next is a consequence, for no one policy is the single guiding principle in foreign policy: policies are subject to a deeper assessment of their utility to American vital interests. Donald Rumsfeld's reference to alternatives to the Khanabad airbase being 'difficult and expensive' demonstrates that a utilitarian assessment of 'alternatives' drove Pentagon policymakers to decide that it was better to maintain warm relations with Karimov despite his brutal track record. And the consequentialist utilitarian assessment undoubtedly entertained the utility of the Karimov government over the alternatives in Uzbekistan. Giving way to Islamic political organisations and allowing the emergence of a Caliphate would threaten not only US energy interests, but fundamentally alter the strategic balance in the region and throw the war on terror in central and south Asia into a spin; US policymakers happily favour support for the Karimov regime in light of the options. Such evaluations will clearly differ from one political context to the next with differing factors giving rise to different utility balances and thus policy and it is this that lies at the heart of duplicity and contradictory policy. And so for US policymakers it is entirely appropriate to endorse the "colour" revolutions including the "Tulip" revolution in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan, supporting the peoples' demands against repressive government, while in the case of Andijan they continue to back the repressive government and downgrade the priority of democratisation. Rather than the now routine accusations of hypocrisy, commentators need to scratch beneath the surface and acknowledge that the philosophy at the heart of foreign policy decision making will license, depending on the context, support for dictators, tyrants, and despots in a utility trade-off, and it is this that must be challenged. The approach is patently dangerous for those who suffer the consequences and demonstrates that the US and other western countries that measure similarly cannot be trusted; happy as they are to entertain policy inconsistencies and contradictions. The questioning must go beyond the obvious and challenge philosophical assumptions that have become axiomatic to foreign policy decision making. It is because of policies that arise from this strong underlying philosophy in foreign policy combined with issues related to prisoner treatment, torture, and other issues, which have made western policy so unattractive to the Muslim world.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 3 4 5
Page 5 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
