29 July 2010

Mission Immoral: Foreign Policy and the Distortion of Liberal Ethics

When giving an opinion or perspective that relies strongly on moral values one must take into consideration that, living in a liberal democracy, we accept that a variety of viewpoints are prevalent and that there is room in our society for all those who share our belief in certain integral values. The value I wish to define briefly before discussing with you is that of hypocrisy, which according to my dictionary is defined as 'The practice of claiming to have moral standards to which one's own Words: Christopher Karamian
Pics: Will Jobbinsbehaviour does not conform'. This truism can be found in articles dating back to the gospels, but by looking around at mainstream foreign policy commentary it would appear that we, the enlightened people of Europe, are still having some considerable difficulty with the idea that what is wrong for others to do is also wrong for us to do.

In the years since their declaration, the wars waged against Afghanistan and Iraq have drawn much scrutiny from media sources and public figures. Humanitarian groups such as the Stop the War Coalition have taken a strong, principled opposition to the conflicts, an opposition that I'm sorry to say I am yet to find in mainstream British press or from any of the major political parties. Leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Nick Clegg, supports the UK's involvement in Afghanistan but calls Iraq 'George Bush's war'. His predecessor, Menzies Campbell, took time off from redecorating his London apartment using taxpayers' money to express the immorality of putting British soldiers' lives at risk when no 'political or military objective is being served'. It is my observation that the vast majority of criticism against British involvement in both of these wars is rooted in pragmatism, and that higher morality only enters into the discussion when it comes to the loss of British countrymen.



The war in Iraq, while widely regarded as a foreign policy disaster or a strategic blunder by many centrist politicians in the UK and USA, is never given the proper moral contemplation that an ethically serious person would wish to give to a war in which 100,000 civilians have died. This does not matter to the good politicians of the West, who regard the intervention as a mistake but never as a crime. The conservative estimate for Afghani civilian deaths is approximately 12,000 since the beginning of the war, and as of August of this year 204 British troops have lost their lives in the conflict. However when one reads of the ever-worsening situation in Afghanistan the emphasis is always on the 204 and never on the 12,000+, and the discussions that follow generally speculate on whether the aims of the conflict can still be achieved.

But what are these righteous and noble aims over which so much blood has been spilled? Defence against international terrorism? The spread of democracy? Women's liberation? The Middle-East wars were undertaken with the correct assumption that they would increase the threat of terrorism, but leaving aside that particular fallacy, let us discuss the moral implications of a policy which advocates bomb and bullet retaliation, and eventual regime change on a country that is suspected of terrorist activities or of enabling terrorist activities. Consider now that since the socialist revolution of the early 1950s the USA has repeatedly committed terrorism against Cuba, as well as implementing an oppressive blockade that has been condemned by various international organizations including the United Nations. If we take as the correct response to international terrorism the bombing and invasion of a country along with the installation of a new government, then Cuban forces are several decades late for a full-scale military assault on the USA. Or let us take the stance that targeted assassinations are an appropriate way of reducing the threat of terrorism, a stance often taken by the Israeli Defence Force in the occupied Palestinian territories, and defended by Downing Street who support these actions as defence against a very real threat.

Taken as true, this standard would give full moral impunity to agents from East Timor should they have committed assassinations in the USA and UK to attempt to halt the flow of arms to the Indonesian forces who occupied them from the 1970s onwards, killing between a quarter and a third of the population with the support of our government. I'm yet to hear of any media outlets that called for the bombing of London or the overthrow of James Callaghan's Labour government at this time.

I turn now to what much of the mainstream discourse regarding the current conflicts is centred around, namely the spread of democratic values and the removal of hostile and oppressive regimes. Ignoring now the debates over whether these hefty tasks may or may not turn out to be 'mission impossible', let us check again our definition of hypocrisy and ask ourselves if they are moral. Do any pro-war politicians or news outlets who condemn the Taliban's abuses against women believe that it would have been right for a foreign coalition to have occupied the UK at the turn of the 20^th century and assist the suffragettes in their often violent struggle for women's rights? Does a moral person truly believe that the correct way to bring about positive and organic change in developing nations is to occupy them militarily and - in the words of one Afghan who was quoted by the BBC - 'export democracy'? When it becomes acceptable for state power to invade a foreign country and impose, at the very top of the nation, a system of government that is in its very essence built from the bottom-upwards, then what we are dealing with as a people is an erosion of our core values.

Even as I type this the BBC are reporting the 'great success' of the presidential election poll in Afghanistan. One can only assume that the writer did not keep a straight face as he reported on the same page that 300,000 Afghan and NATO troops were required to keep the peace at polling stations, as fears arose that there would be attacks from the local enemies of democracy who go by the name Taliban. Those sympathetic to my concerns may still have some reluctance about the notion of pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving the poor citizens of that country in the hands of a group that have been described by former CIA-chief Graham Fuller as 'zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists'. I put it to you that - despite our strong objections to their political and social beliefs - the Taliban have as legitimate a right to resist the occupation of their country as the French communist resistance did during World War Two. While we acknowledge that these groups have their own agenda beyond liberation from a foreign occupier, it is incredibly sectarian of us to reserve solidarity for resistance movements that are as we would like them to be; i.e. democratic, inclusive, secular etc.

Think back now to the haste with which our Western leaders expressed their solidarity with the protesters in Iran who were demonstrating against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All this - despite the known atrocities committed by internal supporters of his rival and leader of the protest movement, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, such as Akbar Rafsanjani, a man responsible for sending dissidents and leftists to their deaths during his reign as president of Iran. It seems the warping of morality disappears when there is no longer a conflict of interests for the political powers and those who serve them.

While practical issues and the loss of British lives are an essential part of the discourse concerning Middle-East policy, we must be ever-wary of those who would make little to no mention of the higher moral standard to which all policy should relate. This distorted morality is a widespread issue and serves the major power interests of our politicians. While the centre-right Liberal Democrat party may present themselves as a force for moderation and a genuine alternative to the Labour/Tory dominated arena, any potential voters who feel strongly about this key issue should be very cautious if they wish to vote for a party that governs not only according to the practical realities but the moral ones as well.