Nearly two years ago, I wrote a piece titled Hypocrisy and Empire Part I. I raised some questions from my good friend Sister B. and promised to answer them in part II. For many reasons I never got around to writing that second article. However, since hypocrisy has been my theme for the last few days, the time has come to take up the topic more fully.
Neo-cons and other modern conservatives view Neville Chamberlain as the archtype of the “liberal appeasers”, who believe in the value of diplomacy as oppossed to war. He famously commented when he returned from Germany with the Munich agreement “This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” This sentance is used as the prime example of how “progressives” like to kowtow to dictators, with disastrous consequence.
Of course this simple-minded reading of history ignores several important facts. Chamberlain himself was an arch-conservative. Like many conservatives of his day (including George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush) he admired Hitler in many ways, and saw in him a bulwark against the great “red tide” of Soviet communism. He appeased Hitler because he shared with him some “values,” not becuase he was a anything close to being an anti-war progressive.
Chamberlain came to my mind today when I read this headline: “Bush: Democracy Taking Hold in Mideast.” Here’s what Mr. Bush had to say during a speech on “terrorism” at National Defense University: “Today, I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. The American people are at your side.”
Of course Mr. Bush was referring to the recent demonstration by tens of thousands mostly Christian Lebanese opposition groups calling for Syria’s withdrawel from that country. Bush of course, is trying to justify his imperialistic adventure in Iraq. “Imperialism is bringing democracy to the Middle East” is the core of his message. But this message, like Chamberlain’s, purposely overlooks some important realites.
I have noted in the past few postings that while it is an exceedingly noble goal to call on Syria to end its occupation, it is also exceedingly hypocritical for Bush to ignore the far longer and far more brutal and anti-democratic occupation of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. And despite recent elections in Iraq, Bush glosses over the fact that Iraq is being occupied by — him!
Here is another, striking quote from Mr. Bush, probably the first thing he ever said which I agree with 100%: “All Syrian military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before the Lebanese elections for those elections to be free and fair. The Lebanese people have the right to determine their future free from domination by a foreign power. The Lebanese people have the right to choose their own parliament this spring free of intimidation.” Did he really say that with a straight face? If he really believes that, why didn’t he demand Israel completely withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza before the recent Palestinian elections there, so that the Palestinians could vote “free of initmidation” from Israeli forces? And why didn’t he completely withdraw U.S. troops before the Iraqi elections to ensure the Iraqis would be “free from domination by a foreign power” when they voted? But all is not lost. He still has the opportunity to withdraw U.S. troops before the next Iraqi elections, so at least they may be “free and fair.”
I am no fan of the Assad family, but the Bush family has not much to be proud of either. His own State department cited human rights abuses by his occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators. The U.S. press barely reports that Iraq has been in a legal “state of emergency” since Allawi came to power, with all civil rights suspended. While the current regime is not like Saddam’s, it is nothing near a democracy. Nor do the elections guarantee that democracy is on its way.
More importantly, Mr. Bush ignored the half a million people, far more than in “opposition” demonstrations, that took to the streets of Beirut today, heeding Sheikh Nasrallah’s call. If Bush supports the authentic aspirations of the Lebanese people, how can he ignore this mass movement? Why does he support the far smaller opposition group over the Hezbollah masses?
Again, the example of Chamberlain sheds some light. Bush spouts hypocritical blather and glosses over the dangers of his policies because he shares a certain ideological perspective with Chamberlain. It is telling which side Bush is taking in the Lebanese conflict, as described in this NY Times report: “The participants at today’s [Hezbollah] demonstration here were, by and large, a very different Lebanon from the educated, better-off Christians and Sunni Muslims who have captured the world’s attention since Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister, was assassinated Feb. 14 by a huge car bomb.”
“While the anti-Syrian opposition movement has been called the Cedar revolution, a reference to the Lebanese national tree, it has also been called the BMW revolution. Today’s demonstration included far more women with covered heads and men in traditional dress.”
Lebanon descended in a long and bloody civil war precisely because the BMW types did not want to share power with the poor and disenfranchised. Far from representing democratic forces, many in the Lebanese opposition are cut from the same elite and authoritarian cloth, that the U.S. has traditionally supported in Latin America.
So now I can finally return to the question I raised in my previous article. Is empire the necessary means for spreading democracy around the world? Two years on, the answer is obvious: What Bush & Co support, like their predecessors, are entrenched interests, not democracy. And what they are spreading in the Middle East is more civil war and chaos, which sadly enough provide more opportunities for exploitation by the corporate military-industrial complex. In today’s speech, Emperor Bush laid out his position clearly for all to see. “We support our BMW friends because they will do business with U.S. corporations. Thats what ‘democracy’ means to the empire.” So much for imperialism being a necessary tool for spreading Enlightenment values.
While oppossing empire is obvious, the alternatives faced by progressives don’t seem too appealing. There is no denying that the poor people of Lebanon have found a voice in the “Party of God,” just like many poor Palestinians have turned to the Hamas. And that voice presents a true challenge to progressives who believe in democracy. No one can deny that Hezbollah and Hamas and other Islamic militant groups represents an authentic voice of the people. Yet their ideologies are fundamentally anti-democratic. What positive approach can one bring to this mess? How does one support democracy without embracing populist fascistic ideologies on the one hand, or imperialistic meddling on the other?
The answer lies in the core values of the Enlightenment: liberty, equality and fraternity. It has long been apparent that none of these values should be made supreme, but all have to be balanced. Unbrideled liberty, as expressed in the neo-con absolute faith in “free markets,” inevitably leads to exploitation by the rich, powerful and well-connected. The Bolshevist ideology of placing equality above all other values, led to some of the most totalitarian and brutal regimes in world history. And populistic fraternity, whether based on religion or ethnicity, continues to be the source of horrible civil wars.
A truly democratic society must balance all these three simultaneously. Fraternity must cross religious and ethnic lines - no state should qualify citizenship based on ethnic or religious membership. Fraternity does not mean my ethnic group above all others. It means all members of society have a mutual responsibility to help each other, regardless of race, sex or creed. While inequality is inherent in human society and should not be forcibly eliminated, all people must be given equal opportunity. Hence society must provide quality education and health care for all, must protect the rights of the weak against the strong and help those who fall on hard times. Because people are different, society must provide people as much freedom of choice as possible, putting minimal restrictions on individual liberties in regards to matters of personal behavior and expression. But giving people maximum liberty, does not include the liberty to exploit another human being.
Surprisingly, such a world view was codified nearly sixty years ago and ratified by all the nations of the world, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document is the supreme expression of Enlightenment values. If all governments around the world used this document as their irrevocable consitutional framework, the world would be a far more harmonious place. Elected governments would not be permitted to disrupt this balance on the whim of a moment, no matter what their electoral margin of victory. One ethnic or religious group could not dominate another. Corporations would be serving society instead of the reverse.
The neo-cons love to hate the UN. So it is no surprise that Bush supported a UN basher to be the next U.S. ambassador to the UN. More imperial hypocrisy. But those who truly believe in progressive ideals, must return to the idealistic core of the UN for inspiration. Raising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as our banner, might be the path to bring peace for all time.
