Freedom’s just another word for trigger-happy neo-conservatism

Scotland Sunday Herald | Jan 23 2005

George W Bush began his second term in office with a ringing encomium about the benefits of freedom and democracy and the need not just to uphold these values at home but also to export them to all those countries which share his aspirations. He did not mince his words: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”
Under normal circumstances, nobody would quarrel with those sentiments. They underpin the values which brought the US into being in 1776 and they endorse a commonly held belief that it is wrong to allow oppression to flourish and right to seek relief for those who are the victims of persecution. That is why the second world war was fought, and the same impulse brought the United Nations into being. Except, of course, these are not normal circumstances. Bush led his country, and encouraged Britain to follow, into an illegal war against Iraq and there is widespread global distrust about the US’s increasingly reckless unilateralist policies. This unrest was revealed before the inauguration, when polls showed that most of the world was wary of US foreign policy and felt that the Bush administration posed a threat to world peace.

There is, therefore, a different agenda underpinning Bush’s messianic zeal. It is one thing to talk about the survival of freedom and the need to uphold democratic values, but it is quite another to put them into practice in a way which is understood and applauded by the rest of the world. At the same time that Bush was drumming home his message of freedom, his secretary of state elect, Condaleezza Rice, was making ominous noises about dealing with “outposts of tyranny” and Bush’s own rhetoric was being flatly contradicted by his neo-conservative allies in Washington confidently claiming that Iran might be their next target .

That is the problem with Bush’s vision for his next four years in power. While he claimed that the US would not impose its values on those unwilling to accept them, he also promised not to waver from the policies which directed his first term in office. If force is needed, it will be used. If allies refuse to join coalitions of the willing they will be ignored and the US will remain unilateralist and alone. If anyone thought that a less focussed and more forgiving president would emerge from the inauguration, they will be disappointed.

True, Bush did offer an olive branch with his offer to Old Europe to let bygones be bygones, but the proof will only be seen when he makes his first second-term presidential visit to Europe next month. Only then will it be possible to see if Bush really does want to rebuild bridges or if he is looking for a reworking of his unilateral approach to international problems. In this respect, it is significant that he made no mention of Iraq in his address. Next week, the country goes to the polls in the first proper elections for over half a century but conditions are far from propitious. Violence and intimidation have made proper electioneering impossible, and in any other country – remember what happened in Ukraine? – the result would be considered a mockery of traditional democratic norms.

Yet Iraq is the laboratory for the US new world order. This was the country which underwent violent regime change without much thought being given to what the outcome would be. Against the wishes of world opinion, including protesters in his own country, Bush pushed ahead with a policy which was wrong-headed and illegal. That is why the Europeans are so unhappy about dealing with an administration which they fear is trigger-happy and reckless, that is why the US has wasted the reservoir of goodwill which was created in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and that is why there will still be a degree of scepticism following Bush’s latest view of the world.

If Bush and his new foreign policy guru are to be believed, having dealt with Iraq, the US wants to deal with other countries which are not to their liking – Rice listed them as Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe. This might not mean using force, Bush promised, but given the treatment meted out to Iraq it is difficult to take his comments at face value. Stripped of the judicious rhetoric which smacked of committees and late nights, Bush’s message was worryingly familiar. There is going to be no turning back from the neo-conservative project which plunged Iraq into anarchy, and if battles have to be fought, they will be fought, unwaveringly and resolutely. Bush might be signalling a willingness for a new kind of communal relationship, but all the signs point to the next four years bringing more of the same.

Tsunami: our chance to help
The public response to the tsunami disaster has been staggering – with the final total expected to exceed £200 million. Yesterday’s concert in Cardiff alone raised £1m. The Sunday Herald is proud to have played a role in bringing together Scotland’s major live music promoters and the biggest bands in the country to stage a spectacular fundraising concert, as we announce today.
Every penny of the ticket money will go to the Disasters Emergency Committee, which is working to get aid to those areas which need it most and to restore hope to shattered lives.

As Iain Macwhirter argues in today’s news section, it is important that the tsunami is not allowed to simply slip down the agenda, as so many disasters have done when Western TV crews and reporters return home. The scale of the public reaction presents a real opportunity to change the way we view aid, and our relationship with the developing world.

In our coverage of the aftermath of the tsunami, the Sunday Herald has sought to examine that relationship and to look at the opportunities we now have to effect real and long-lasting improvements in how the West can meet its financial responsibilities.

In a recent article in this newspaper, Ian Bell put forward the case for a radical redrawing of the relationship between the developed and the developing world, pointing out that the poorest 48 countries have just 0.4% of the global market … and that share is shrinking.

If the tsunami is to have a lasting legacy, it should be that the effects of globalisation, free trade and third world debt are recognised and – finally – dealt with. These are issues to be debated over the coming months.

Meanwhile, the Concert For Tsunami Relief has just one aim: to raise as much money as possible. We would urge our readers to buy tickets and to give what they can.