Thursday, June 26, 2003

Jurgen Habermas on American Hegemony and the ebbing of International Law

This should be required reading for Christopher Hitchens. I would add to him the Kristolmethodists, but then they are, depending on the individual, permanently oblivious OR willfully ignorant of the sense of Habermas's argument which is, at heart, what every anti-war protestor's was (and is):

"It is precisely the universalistic core of democracy and human rights that forbids their unilateral realisation at gunpoint."

Exactly. Pre-emptive policy is inherently ANTI-democractic and ANTI-human rights. Moreover, and I have said this til I'm blue in the face, it's inherently immoral to export ANY ideology by force. To say it's not is to excuse every crusader, every zealot, every fascist, every conquerer and every missionary. Good ideology (democracy) or bad (theocracy) only matters by degrees when considered in this context.

As anyone should know, people will prefer to adopt an ideology if reasoned with or given a choice, by diplomatic means. If not, and if for the world's safety we wish a country to change, we AS A COMMUNITY of nations may help them in the means of effecting their OWN revolution. The only lasting revolutions come from within. On the other hand, people do not like to be forced to adopt an ideology, no matter what that ideology is. Therefore, when one is forced on them, their normal recourse is an equal and opposite reaction, which can and will effectively thwart the genuine revoltuionary forces that were once within the given country. Thus it is inherently counterproductive to the cause of human rights to forcibly export ideology, whether economic or political, good or bad.

"The "universalism" of the old empires was of this sort, perceiving the world beyond the distant horizon of their borders only from the centralising perspective of their own worldview. "

Again, centralisation! Shades of Brooks Adams. Everything must be converted, or killed so that it may feed the lumbering imperial beast. A Darwinism of systems, which devotees of Ayn Rand should appreciate, even more so since evil socialists and barterers are being "converted" or murdered. Of course the economic imperialism, the monetary centralisation is too banal for Habermas to go into, so he ignores that part to make a point further : beyond an economic centralisation (globalism), there follows with it an aim to centralise ideology -- from one strain OF a particular ideology, in fact. One may think that goes without saying, but it's not : globalists can and have (in spades!) made money from the tyrants and dictators who embody everything that is NOT democratic. But what they have now discovered is that not only do dictators have a negative PR value, but that a corrupt version of democracy is easier for corporations to control (because it is a velvety form of authoritarianism) than are their old dictator clients over whom the threat of revolution or assassination constantly loom.

In fact, this argument is taken up by Fareed Zakaria (beware disingenuosness in that article; also notice the backhand slap at Allende), who is in many ways one of the most candid (that article withstanding) of globalistas. He points, disapprovingly, to the fact that where democracy is not allowed to be corrupted by the American corporations (as in Venezuela), it is by very nature "illiberal".

Hence globalist neo-liberalism, as preached by Zakaria, Kristolmethodists and the United States, Inc., is a sham, for it does not seek democracy in its Venezuelan OR Northern European forms, because in those organic forms it cannot be corrupted as easily. It hates the grassroots, it hates the welfare state, it hates the coalition government and referenda; it only thrives where elections can be bought and where there is no real multiparty system.

(Link courtesy of Ane.)