Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Observations by LAKSHMAN GUNASEKERA

These Thais are irrepressible. As if three glitzy nightlife centres in Bangkok were not enough, they've gone and set up another one the Clinton Entertainment Plaza (on Sukhumvit Road, for those interested). And the club and bar managers are not shy to say whom it is named after: former United States' President Bill Clinton.

Why? "He likes to have lot of fun... lot," one dapper usher told me, a twinkle in his eye and a stress on "lot". I guess that there are a lot of Americans who agree. They seemed to make up at least half of the clientele milling around the Plaza. Even if those Americans indulging there were not, I know of many other Americans who are embarrassed by such international glee over the more lurid controversies that rage through Washington.

Americans, today, are also uneasily aware of the harsh reality that there are people throughout the world who were, if not elated, at least quietly satisfied over last year's devastating suicide guerrilla strike on Washington and New York.

Leaving aside those virulently anti-American and anti-imperialist people throughout the world, especially in the Third World, I once received a pamphlet from a Christian fundamentalist preacher (possibly funded by unknowing American Christians) who exulted in those tragic incidents because it proved that God punishes lechery as well as those US leaders who apparently allowed homosexuality to flourish in the US armed forces! I like to believe that the good Brother "knew not what he was doing".

If Bill Clinton's antics made Americans squirm, many are doing so again after the latest 'State of the Union' address by their current President. Even the (till recently bellicose) major American news weeklies like Time magazine are critical of what seemed to be the principal proposition in President George Bush' speech: that so-called "Axis of Evil".

While embarrassedly recording Europe's obvious discomfort if not scorn at this simplicism emanating right from the top of Capitol Hill, Time (and other magazines and newspapers) also notes that US Secretary of State Colin Powell - known to be a dove in the current US administration - took some days to gather his wits and speak out in defence of his President's latest position.

Meanwhile, much of the US Establishment is busy diluting the ludicrousness of this foreign policy formula so as to give some kind of coherence to the general foreign policy outlook put forward in the Presidential address. Actually, there is much that made sense (from the point of view of Washington's currently right-wing-liberalism) in the speech but all that was lost in the predicating of everything on this 'Axis'.

Of course, post-modernists should love the rationale behind the 'Axis'. After all, the only rationale that could, possibly, bring together the three countries named as being the 'Axis of Evil' - Iran, Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of (north) Korea is the rabid anti-Americanism that has been spouted by some of the leaderships in these countries from time to time.

Even that rationale sounds hollow when one considers the fact that, just weeks ago, Iran had offered to give medical treatment to American soldiers wounded in the Western revenge attack on the Taliban/Al-qaeda in Afghanistan.

Despite that fact, despite the consistent military support by Teheran to anti-Taliban guerrillas (when the US's chief regional ally Pakistan was financing and equipping the Taliban), despite Teheran's quiet permission for over-flight by US planes striking at Taliban targets, despite the years of gradual rapprochement of Teheran with the West in general, Washington has now chosen to recall the old anti-Americanism (by the vast majority of Iranians) during the popular struggle against, and after the overthrow of, the repressive Shah Rezah Pahlevi who had been installed in power and propped by the US.

Teheran today enjoys good relations with most of Europe, and always did with the rest of the world, except with the US during the decades of the Shah's rule and aftermath.

The same, however, cannot be said of Iraq and North Korea. Even here, although right now both may seem equally anti-American, there is a difference between the two countries.

President Clinton had actively supported Republic of (south) Korea President Kim Dae Jung's 'Sunshine Policy' of reviving links with North Korea with consequent benefits in terms of Pyongyang's gradual opening up to the West (it had always been fairly receptive to the rest of the world).

Relations with Washington were on the mend, and Pyongyang was approaching a readiness to gradually conform to the dominant global political order (beginning with monitoring of nuclear plants) when George Bush arrived in Washington, via Florida, and explicitly rejected any dealings with North Korea.

Today, given Seoul's sensitivity to Washington's whims, even the 'Sunshine Policy' is in disarray. Furthermore, President Kim has various pressing domestic pre-occupations.

Iraq, of course, has remained strongly hostile to Washington ever since its desperate invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War that prompted it. It must be remembered, though, that for at least a decade before that, Washington generally favoured Baghdad over Teheran and supported the arming of Iraq by other Western powers and the USSR during the Iran-Iraq war.

So, even in terms of anti-American stances, there has been little coherence (let alone a deliberately co-ordinated 'Axis') among these three countries.

But the principal incongruity of the 'Axis' proposition lies elsewhere. Even if there had been some vague coherence in the anti-American rhetoric among these three countries, these countries, either singly or collectively, have ever been hostile to the rest of the world in general.

In the first place there has never been any triangular relationship among these three states. After fighting one of humankind's most bloody wars Iran and Iraq yet remain enemies with each hosting rebel groups hostile to the government of the other.

Iran does have some trade and limited military exchange ties with North Korea. So did Israel with India when Delhi was (and is) strongly supportive of the Palestinian cause; so did Apartheid South Africa with Sri Lanka when Colombo was strongly supportive of the Black freedom struggle there. But this did not mean there were "Axes" of any sort between these states.

Most significantly, in the case of 'Axis of Evil', the only common thing that Washington can point to is thread of the anti-American rhetoric. Even if that is significant enough to render the arbitrary clustering of these three countries into an 'Axis' (recalling the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy and Japan in the Second World War), the leap of imagination taken to render them an 'Axis of Evil' that is threatening the whole world community is a critical one.

It is a leap of American imagination that results in an imposition of America's perception of anti-Americanism (a supposedly co-ordinated anti-Americanism) on the whole world.

What is supposedly anti-American is an 'Evil' and a threat to the whole world. It is such a threat that America's President makes it the keynote of his annual policy address to his nation and invokes the support of the principal international military alliance (NATO) to which his country belongs and heads.

It is not surprising then, that there is much tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth in Western Europe's capitals. When asked by the media about the "Axis of Evil", German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder carefully sidestepped the question and talked generally about the threat of 'terrorism' etc, etc.

By means of the 'Axis of Evil' America's very subjective perceptions become the basis for a grand international plot against the international community. A deeply subjective reality of one country is forced on to global society as an objective phenomenon of 'evil'.

Post-modernists of the West will love this proof of the subjectivity of 'objectivism'. In fact it is uncertain whether this subjective threat perception extends very far beyond the policy perceptions of the dominant group around President George Bush and the Political Right and Christian fundamentalist Right groups that influence it. Most certainly, some significant sections of mainstream America are not in consonance with it, or the mainstream media would not have become so critical.

As President Bush implies in his address, it is presumed that the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, at least, will stand up and fight alongside the USA against this 'Evil'. And if Washington's anti-Taliban/Al-Qaeda posture was anything to go by, those of us in the rest of the world who are not with the USA against this new 'Evil', then we will be perceived as supporters of that 'Evil'.

Hence, even as the globalisation process implies an integration of world society, an universalisation, even, of human civilisation, the very nature of this so-called globalisation has, within it, a compounding and universalising of all aspects of that humanity. The globalisation of 'good' means the globalisation of 'evil'.

The very promoters of the current form of globalisation, themselves, are insisting on this vide President George Bush.

No wonder our own Dr. Gamani Corea talks of 'globalisation' being more a 'polarisation' (he was referring specifically to the global economic cleavages, but the logic is the same). Washington urgently needs to regain some consistency in its political postures if the world it wants to lead is to be led anywhere at all.

The failure to actively engage in West Asia on the Palestinian issue and in North East Asia on the Korean issue and the current crises in these two regions are but some of the examples of the danger of a global power failing to meet its imperial responsibilities.

Of course, one country cannot impose its solutions of its design on other countries, let alone whole regions. The societies in those countries and regions have the primary responsibility and must play the primary role.

Even if the ruling elite thinks imperially, there are many in Washington and in the USA as a whole who think otherwise and are prepared to help societies in struggle to help themselves. Some of them may yet share in the 'universalist' misconceptions of 19th century Euro-rationalism, but, overall, the anti-authoritarian spirit of the American Revolution, is an inspiration for solidarity across borders. Hence, the massive success of the anti-globalisation movement which is aimed not so much at 'globalisation' per se, but at the elitist and unjust nature of its current form.

Fortunately, the success of American civilisation does not, and has never, depended on the subjective perceptions of its ruling elite alone. If the White people of America created their nation-state, the Red and Black people (and more recently the Yellow people, other Asians and, Hispanics) are, by means of their resistance to domination and contributions to reconciliation, continuing to fashion this great country.

I remember when I arrived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1991 August, the first thing I noticed the next morning was the big photo on the front of the local newspaper of a (White) woman activist holding a placard protesting the sanctions against Iraq. It turned out that every Wednesday, a small group (almost all White) was demonstrating their protest in front of the main Government office in town. It continued to happen the whole year I lived there.

And I became increasingly aware of the sheer intensity and multiplicity of citizens' politics in that 'land of the free'.

America may dominate the world today, in the perceptions of some Americans, but others across there (on the Far Side of the Earth from where we are) are quite happy to have 'a lot of fun' on equal terms with everyone elsewhere with no 'axes' to grind.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager