Stijn van der Kasteel (mahnmut) wrote in talk_politics,
Stijn van der Kasteel

Nothing new in foreign policy

Despite all the bold promises about breaking up with the old ways that Trump made during the election campaign, by his recent actions at the international scene one would conclude that in fact, Kissinger's doctrine is pretty much alive and well...

Trump’s Support and Praise of Despots Is Central to the U.S. Tradition, Not a Deviation From It

"Imposing or propping up dictators subservient to the U.S. has long been, and continues to be, the preferred means for U.S. policymakers to ensure that those inconvenient popular beliefs are suppressed. None of this is remotely controversial or even debatable. U.S. support for tyrants has largely been conducted out in the open, and has been expressly defended and affirmed for decades by the most mainstream and influential U.S. policy experts and media outlets."

Of course, there are number of downsides to all this. For one, the US loses the moral high ground. This whole empire-building tradition means that when the God-chosen nation does take a stand for "humanitarian" reasons, it's often to bomb other countries and/or justify regime change. Have to make it look good for the folks back home, right?

It's well worth it to read the entire piece, by the way. The author attempts to pull the curtain away, in no uncertain terms, from the corporate media's misdirection and lies concerning US foreign policy supporting tyrants, as some of them are now claiming that it is all just starting under Trump. It just is not.*

This also should warn us that when the "extrajudicial" killing of inconvenient people begins on home turf, it is only an extension, and the logical conclusion, of long entrenched US policy, only now come home to roost. And no, Obama was no saint in this either. He may've not been as interventionist as W, but he did vastly expand the drone program, didn't he?

* The difference with Trump is elsewhere. The US has always been hypocritical, supporting democracy and human rights at home and abroad, but also supporting dictators when it suited their interests. But Trump actually believes in what these dictators are doing and is an opponent to democracy and human rights. That's where the author is is blurring things here. That's the nuanced difference where Trump is not exactly acting in the US tradition. But his rationale notwithstanding, the end result is the same.
Tags: democracy, international relations, trump
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded