U.S. foreign policy and its meta-narratives

A DECADE has passed since the Gulf War and the world is on the brink of another major military onslaught, this time on Afghanistan. On the face of it things are different. In the Gulf War, the U.S. had an easy target, a spatially defined nation- state. This time the hunted is more mobile and less clearly defined. If it is Osama bin Laden, where is he and how will he be found? If it is all countries who harbour terrorists, who is a terrorist and how are countries to be singled out? What constitutes a successful mission is also different. The Gulf War was aimed at destroying Saddam Hussein and Iraq's military (including nuclear) arsenal. Operation Infinite Justice will only be deemed successful if Osama bin Laden and all other terrorists are killed or behind bars.Despite these differences, the meta- narrative of Operation Infinite Justice is very similar to that of Operation Desert Storm. It is a narrative of the `free' and `civilised' world against `rogue states' and `terrorists'. It is a narrative of `democracy' versus `dictatorship'. It is a narrative of `tolerance' versus `intolerance'. This narrative is being defined by the U.S., but many nation-states are jumping on the bandwagon. The narrative, by definition, forces many of us to take sides because we find it so difficult to justify the death of innocent people no matter what the cause.

There are other reasons why such a narrative is acceptable to us. One reason is the huge impact the media has on our thought processes. Not only have we witnessed continuous action replays of commercial airliners bulldozing into the World Trade Center, but even more horrifying have been the pictures of people jumping out of windows to `apparent safety'. Another reason why such a narrative is acceptable to us is because we too see ourselves as victims of terrorism.

Dangers outweigh benefits

Despite the appeal of this meta-narrative, the dangers far outweigh the benefits. First of all, this meta-narrative selectively reconstructs the past and silences many voices. However dastardly this act was, it occurred in a historical context. Any history Professor will tell you to study the causes of war — in this case understand why people become so pathologically anti-American. Most of it has been said before and swept under the carpet. It is, therefore, worth recalling at least some of it. Pictures of Palestinian refugees celebrating in refugee camps in Lebanon should be seen in the context of countless families living in tents for decades due largely to U.S. military support of Israel and its veto power within the United Nations. The U.S. itself, moreover, has not been free of acts of terror (as defined in its own terms). A few years ago, an Iranian airliner flying over international airspace was shot down killing over 200 people. It remained in the news for a day. The U.S. said sorry and all was forgotten. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Remember, the Saddam Husseins and Osama bin Ladens of this world not so long ago were considered freedom fighters by the U.S. and funded and armed by the American Government. This is perhaps the biggest irony of it all.

Even if we explain all of this away in terms of national self- interest, there are many other inconsistencies within the meta- narrative. For example, let us look at the question of tolerance versus intolerance, very much central to the narrative. The killing of a Sikh in the U.S., and a spurt of verbal and physical attacks on minorities in the U.K. and other European countries reminds us that in the `tolerant' West there are quite a few intolerant people as well. These people are unable and uninterested in differentiating between a Sikh and a Muslim, because all `Arab' looking people are responsible for what has happened. The worrying thing is that in the context of the meta- narrative, these incidents are either marginalised, deemed to be sporadic and limited in nature or worst of all justified as being `understandable'.

Hegemonic discourse

While these incidents might be sporadic and limited, they highlight the contradictions of deeming this conflict between the free, democratic and civilised world and the undemocratic and uncivilised world. Are the perpetrators of such revenge attacks civilised or not? The U.S. position, namely that you are either with them or against them, also goes against any notion of democracy that the civilised world is supposed to stand for. If the U.S. is able to justify its foreign policy in terms of national self-interest, why not other countries? Huntington's clash of civilisations might be far-fetched, but this conflict is clearly constructing a hegemonic discourse which silences possible alternative conflict resolution strategies. As a result, the views of more moderate Muslims will also be lost and notions of pluralism discarded in a clamour for revenge. And the irony once again is that it is being done in the name of freedom and democracy.

The meta-narrative also silences many important voices in the West. Though the U.S. talks about a grand alliance, dissenting voices are clearly there (though they are quickly disappearing). Many European nations are not committing themselves to join any military campaign. Russia too is remaining somewhat aloof despite its own encounters with Chechen rebels. Little has been heard from African and South American nations other than that the U.S. should exercise caution. And even within the U.S. and Europe, peace activists are trying their best to be heard. These narratives are important as they remind us that there are saner voices out there.

This brings us back to the U.S. We (in India) either seem to hate or love the U.S. We speak about U.S. imperialism or the wonders of the free market and all that goes with it. Operation Infinite Justice will only intensify these love and hate feelings. So too the meta-narratives that go along with it. Yet, the irony of it all is that despite the blatantly self-centred and inhumane face of U.S. foreign policy, a lot can be learnt from the plurality of civil society in the U.S. New York City, while most definitely a symbol of economic power, is also one of the most cosmopolitan and vibrant societies in the world. Not surprisingly many of those involved in the recent attacks were living in the U.S.

It is also worth remembering that a war, justified in terms of good versus evil, will only strengthen the hands of those attacked. Homogenising meta-narratives are countered by competing meta-narratives. The Osama bin Ladens of this world are also not interested in pluralism and democracy — they too are sure that their world view is omnipotent and that they are on the side of righteousness. Belligerent rhetoric will polarise the world even further, discourage dissent and difference, and ultimately lead to a far less tolerant place. Thus, the answer cannot be in the form of a military onslaught. Even if Osama bin Laden is killed, many more will be created in the process. Instead, the U.S. must stop and take a hard look at itself. It must realise that its desire for revenge and `justice' will be better served by upholding notions of plurality and democracy in the international arena and within its own borders. Similarly for us in India, let us not be too eager to jump on the U.S. bandwagon or make the same mistakes when dealing with our own conflicts.

AJIT MENON

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : The economics of terrorism
Next     : Eligible MLA first, Minister later