NEED FOR MORALITY DRIVEN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 13^TH NOVEMBER 2005)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud(former Secretary and ambassador)

Whether the Iraq invasion by the Anglo-American military combine has to be left to history to be judged for its conformity or otherwise of Michael Walzer’s principles of Just and Unjust War because no redress against the aggressors can be taken has become debatable. Equally debatable is the question whether the Bush Doctrine of Preemption rendering the UN Charter irrelevant because the Iraq war was undertaken neither in self-defense nor with the consent of the UN Security Council compounded by the facts that both the allegations relating to the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein and his links with the al-Qaida have proved to be wrong should be added as fait accompli of the dustbin of history. But the perceptible return of the second Bush administration to multilateral diplomacy, albeit grudgingly, through the strident voices of Condoleeza Rice and John Bolton reminding the global audience that the saber only remains sheathed for the moment, is a welcome sign. To be fair despite President Bush’s unremitting pursuit of conservatism exemplified most recently by his nomination of “Scalito” Samuel Alito(likened to arch conservative Justice Joseph Scalia) to the US Supreme Court to fill up the vacancy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is commendable because of his consistency that is no mean feat to achieve in politics. His brand of “patriotic conservatism” not only accords with the philosophy of the likes of Robert Kagan, Paul Wilfowitz and Richard Perle, it has also most recently been endorsed by Nixon’s first term Defense Secretary Melvin Laird (Foreign Affairs-Nov/Dec 2005) who has urged President Bush to “articulate a simple message and mission”. “Just as in the 60s the spread of communism was very real,” writes Melvin Laird “so the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam is very real today... Our troops are not fighting there (in Iraq) only to preserve the rights of the Iraqis to vote. They are fighting to preserve modern culture, Western democracy, the global economy, and all else that is threatened by the spread of barbarism in the name of religion. That is the message and the mission”. Laird’s description of the US mission in Iraq resonates with John Foster Dulles’ nightmare that unless a defense mechanism like NATO was formed the Stalinist Soviet Union would continue to threaten the Western civilization and Christianity. Laird challenges the Bush administration to take lessons from Vietnam war “an ugly, mismanaged and tragic episode in US history” and advises that the US should not fail, as it did in Vietnam, to deliver logistical support to her allies, and must not do, as it did in Vietnam, “Americanization of the war. Laird feels that the US needs to put her “resources and unwavering public support behind a program of Iraqization so that we can get out of Iraq and have the Iraqis in a position to protect themselves”. He endorses President Bush’s view that Iraq is the front line state in the war on terror, not because the terrorists dominate Iraq but because Iraq provides the US with an opportunity “to displace militant Islamic rule throughout the region”. Many in the Bush administration and outside believe that President Bush’s resolute stand in Iraq, despite dwindling support at home and abroad, is changing the political topography in the Islamic world. Egypt saw, however flawed, a multi-party Presidential elections. Syrian troops had to withdraw from Lebanon and now because of the recent US-UK-France sponsored UNSC resolution passed unanimously on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri Syria would feel compelled to cooperate with the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis even if the conspiratorial links reach the uppermost echelon of Syrian administration linking President Bashar al-Assad’s brother and brother-in-law. Though these are early days since the Mehlis report contains circumstantial evidence against the Lebanese-Syrian collusion in the Hariri murder that may not stand up in a court of law Syria has already agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors in the investigation. Even in Saudi Arabia where the regime is fighting for a foothold in the constant battle between a Western educated elite clamoring for transparent governance and a Wahabi religious establishment confident in its inerrant belief in Tawhid or monotheism as defined by Abdul Wahab seeking return to Qurranic literalism and puritanical theology of Islam voices for change are building up. Despite these faltering steps towards openness in the Islamic world Melvin Laird strongly recommends increasing the US defense expenditure, already more than four hundred billion dollars, to be increased further because of the realities of the global threat of terrorism coupled with the “outside possibility of conventional warfare with an enemy such as China or North Korea”. While a Stalinist North Korea having nuclear ambition, which is opposed by the international community taking an adversarial position vis-à-vis the US, is understandable Melvin Laird’s apprehension of China becoming a possible enemy of the US is noteworthy. One may recall that as far back as 1968 President Nixon had realized that a China that lived in isolation from the international community would be more destabilizing than one that can be enmeshed in an interactive world. This realization led Nixon to open relations with China in 1972. President Carter following Nixon’s footsteps normalized diplomatic relations with China in 1979. Presidents Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and  George Bush have followed policies of bilateral engagement with China and to bring China within the ambit of multilateral institutions. There is, however, recognition more in the US than in Europe that China’s rise as a global power is through her increasing hard power which directly affects US national security in East Asia. The Chinese point of view is endowed with the realistic recognition that the US with its current primacy in military, economic, technological, cultural, diplomatic and all other domains retains the position to exert greatest strategic pressure on China. Besides without the US’ cooperative partnership China cannot maintain its modernization efforts. On the other hand the US needs Chinese help on issues like counter terrorism, non-proliferation, maintenance of stability in the Middle East, trade and finance etc. But Sino-US relationship though lacking the confrontational character of the US-Soviet rivalry of the bygone days does suffer from stress and strain. Some American academics hold the view that the US is unwittingly helping strengthen Chinese military power by promoting China’s economic development. China counters this argument by saying that any conscious US strategy aimed at stunting the growth of Chinese economy would adversely affect many US enterprises in China and deny the American people the opportunity to buy inexpensive high quality Chinese products. As the fourth largest trading partner and the source of the largest US trade deficit Chinese economy is important to the US. Besides the US importers are increasing their reliance on China with sizeable part of their import from that country. In the long run, Beijing University Professor Wang Jisi believes that US primacy will decline and multi-polarity will inevitably reemerge, as the European-Russian-Chinese differences with the US will deepen with time. But in the short run Charles Krauthammer’s Prometheus after playing pigmy for a long time is unlikely to restrain itself from the freedom of action it now enjoys as an “America unbound”. Given the current turbulence seen worldwide, the most recent terrorist attacks in Delhi and all over Bangladesh, one wonders whether there is merit in the argument proffered by Professor Niall Ferguson that the if the world insists on the withdrawal of the US hegemony it may not necessarily be replaced by multi-polarity but by apolarity heralding “an anarchic Dark Age: an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism, of endemic plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization’s retreat into a few fortified enclaves”. Despite such apocalyptic warnings the world, both the non-US developed and the developing parts, is unlikely to buy the theory of Hegemonic Stability pioneered by Kindelberger that an open world economy requires a dominant global power for its smooth functioning. If the US were to be considered as the hegemonic power then its legitimacy deficit caused through coercive conduct particularly since 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US mainland has already lessened its hegemonic power. Besides “imperial overstretch” already felt by the Bush administration due to American multifarious military commitment would gradually lessen the US role as the global hegemon. In that case the answer lies in the strengthening of the UN system and international law. Since power ultimately belongs to the people it is necessary to bring back popular confidence in the conduct of international affairs by the big powers. Perhaps it may also be useful to remind ourselves of the Nixon Doctrine contained in his foreign policy report to the Congress in 1970 that the US will participate in the defense and development of her allies and friends but “America can not—and will not—conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions and undertake all the defenses of the free nations of the world. We will help where it makes a real difference”. Watergate scandal apart Nixon Doctrine stands in contrast with the Bush doctrine of preemption that subordinates Westphalian concept of sovereignty and normative practice of the international law. One would, however, like to hope that Kantian morality should not be a daydream or a figment of imagination for the people of the world. It needs to have a place in all decision making process from the smallest geographical area to the international arena. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz while discussing Harvard Professor Benjamin Friedman’s book THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH stresses the role of ethics in growth, as “societal goods such as greater equality and better environment” do not necessarily accompany growth. He questions another Nobel Laureate Simon Kuznet’s thesis that eventually growth will bring more social justice because there is no inevitability about it as growing inequality in the US itself provides an ample testimony. Therefore if globalization is to succeed by making the world into a single moral community and not merely a pluralistic society of states then the commitment of all members of the UN to the rule of law and guarantee of equality and justice has to be ensured.