Diego Garcia
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the cold war, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’
Francis Fukuyama
Since the end of the cold war, Liberal democracy as we know it has been almost universally championed as the ideal endpoint for all nation states. Colonizing nations engineered their colonies to mimic this form of government under the notion that it is somehow more civilized, more ‘modern’ than anything these countries previously had. In truth, the ‘modernity’ of nation-states and Liberal Democracy is an idea that was profoundly and deliberately manufactured by imperialism, partly to justify it.
Since the end of the cold war, Liberal democracy as we know it has been almost universally championed as the ideal endpoint for all nation states. Colonizing nations engineered their colonies to mimic this form of government under the notion that it is somehow more civilized, more ‘modern’ than anything these countries previously had. In truth, the ‘modernity’ of nation-states and Liberal Democracy is an idea that was profoundly and deliberately manufactured by imperialism, partly to justify it.
Nowadays, the model is still championed, but Britain and the USA’s reaction to revolts in the middle-east highlight contradictions within. We celebrate, on moral and ethical grounds, the liberation of the people, the triumph of democratic values, yet for years and years we have courted dictators and tyrants for economic benefit. Throughout history, Britain’s foreign policy credentials in terms of morality are shockingly low. How can we continue to maintain this paradox?
To pretend to promote and influence the adoption of liberal democracy abroad, and yet continue to embark on foreign policy initiatives that are – sometimes openly – not rooted in values or morality and undermining the pursuit of liberal democracy. Even worse, is the smugness we feel when watching the Egyptian revolution – they’re catching up with us; they’re realizing what’s best. Infact, the struggle of the Egyptians was as much a struggle against the West’s economic support of Mubarak, as against the man himself (whether they realized it or not).
Last week, David Cameron travelled around the middle-east shamelessly promoting the sale of British arms to the very governments who undermine every single aspect of ‘Liberal Democracy’. This example is only the latest of the hypocrisy that has defined British foreign policy for years under both Labour and Conservative governments; a hypocrisy that is rarely ever acknowledged by the mainstream press.
Few people know of what happened to the small Island of Diego Garcia in 1966, under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government. There, the residents of the island, who had been there for generations, were forcibly evacuated from their homes in order to set the Island up as a military base for the USA. The inhabitants were given minimal help and many were left homeless and helpless.
This little incident was kept quiet from the British public and even from MPs for years. In light of this, maybe we ought to rethink the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ before we get on our high horse about it. The west’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict highlights further how self-interest takes precedence over morality in worldly affairs. Rarely is the daily suffering of Palestinians ever properly acknowledged by politicians, as British and American governments continue to supply arms to Israel.
Former foreign secretary Robin Cook once spoke not of ‘ethical foreign policy’ but ‘a foreign policy with an ethical dimension’. This may seem like a shameless admission of self-interested foreign policy, but personally, I sometimes struggle to see where the ‘ethical dimension’ comes in at all.
Lucy Hall
Comments
Your article in Ars Notoria makes a valid point regarding foreign policy cutting its coat to suit its cloth, although every nation state has indulged and will sadly continue to indulge in this mechanism of self-interest. It is, after all, in man’s nature to protect the state he has, in the face of considerable hardship and no small loss of life, thus far manufactured; a state in which, for a kick off, open voice for most of us is permitted. And, no one would seek to justify the appalling treatment of the natives of Diego Garcia. It was completely wrong. However, coming thirteen years after the Korean War and a mere four years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a period of history in which hawkish attitudes in the ‘free’ world very naturally prevailed, it must be viewed in a historical context and with perspective. The fact that no one did drop an atomic bomb in the aftermath of World War II does not necessarily imply that it wasn’t going to happen. Most people who lived through the post war years will recall all too readily the persistent and chilling threat of nuclear Armageddon. Sadly the people of Diego Garcia paid a similar price to the price that others, most notably the service men and women and civilians in the Wars of the Twentieth Century, died fighting to pay. As far as Liberal Democracy being the endpoint of man’s ideological evolution, I cannot agree. This is akin to suggesting the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has only one wretched future because of those who allowed it to develop and others who seemingly perpetuate it. There are, I hope, a few more rungs in the ladder of man’s ideological evolution that he has yet to put his foot on, and it is a paramount importance that we learn from the past rather than yield to the convenient temptation to discredit it and those who constructed it. But, if you’ve got a better alternative to Liberal Democracy, why not continue the evolutionary process and let’s hear it. I’m all ears!
Peter Crawley
and you've misunderstood on liberal democracy my whole point is that it is definitely not the endpoint of mans ideological evolution - it is portaryed by the west as so as an ideological mechanism for power and control over other 'less developed' states. (i think!) thanks for your feedback - comments always appreciated!
Lucy