Hypocrisy in Trump foreign policy ~ echo from Delaware
Delaware echo opinion letter to the editor: The Daily Times
Two recent events in the Middle East illustrate well the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.
We claim to uphold human rights the world over — and to oppose the use of barbaric weapons. Hence, consistent with that principle, it was right and fitting to condemn the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians in the city of Douma, Syria, killing dozens.
Criticism, of course, also flowed against Russia and Iran for backing the Assad government of Syria, justifiably so.
Trump’s tweet was clear.
“President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay.”
Yet in this same month, Saudi-led air strikes have rained down upon civilians in Yemen, killing upwards of at least 40 people. In one strike, 20 were killed, mainly children, at a wedding in the town of Alraqqah.
Here we see the double standard applied, revealing the absence of genuine moral abhorrence against barbarity. If we were to be engaged in genuine pursuit of human rights, condemnation of barbarous acts of governments would apply equally to all those who engage in genuine acts of terrorism — both of which we see in these cases.
The difference lies, however, in who engages in these acts: U.S. allies or enemies.
In the case of Syria, the Assad government is viewed as part of a strategic enemy camp, including in particular Iran but also Russia, both allies to the Assad regime in Syria.
In the case of the bombing of Yemen, the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia is viewed as an “ally” and therefore, the airstrikes are considered necessary and acceptable.
"We criticize loudly that the one act is obscene, but remain silent when an equally obscene act is carried out by our client-state subordinates."~ "Why the U.S. support? The rationale is clear and cold, devoid of humanitarian ethical concerns." ~ Michael O'Loughlin
Two recent events in the Middle East illustrate well the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.
We claim to uphold human rights the world over — and to oppose the use of barbaric weapons. Hence, consistent with that principle, it was right and fitting to condemn the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians in the city of Douma, Syria, killing dozens.
Criticism, of course, also flowed against Russia and Iran for backing the Assad government of Syria, justifiably so.
Trump’s tweet was clear.
“President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay.”
Yet in this same month, Saudi-led air strikes have rained down upon civilians in Yemen, killing upwards of at least 40 people. In one strike, 20 were killed, mainly children, at a wedding in the town of Alraqqah.
 |
| Yemeni men carried the body of victim killed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Monday in Al Hudaydah, the only remaining Yemen port controlled by Houthi rebels.CreditAbdo Hyder/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images |
The U.S. response? Silence.
More: Trump, U.S government show respect to dictators ~ NewYorkTimes
More: Trump, U.S government show respect to dictators ~ NewYorkTimes
Here we see the double standard applied, revealing the absence of genuine moral abhorrence against barbarity. If we were to be engaged in genuine pursuit of human rights, condemnation of barbarous acts of governments would apply equally to all those who engage in genuine acts of terrorism — both of which we see in these cases.
The difference lies, however, in who engages in these acts: U.S. allies or enemies.
In the case of Syria, the Assad government is viewed as part of a strategic enemy camp, including in particular Iran but also Russia, both allies to the Assad regime in Syria.
In the case of the bombing of Yemen, the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia is viewed as an “ally” and therefore, the airstrikes are considered necessary and acceptable.
We criticize loudly that the one act is obscene, but remain silent when an equally obscene act is carried out by our client-state subordinates. As such, the U.S. critique is found to reveal simply a strategic power play rather than a credible moral claim: We really have little interest in moral play, interested primarily in actions that advance power in the region.
By assisting Saudi Arabia in its effort to control Yemen, we advance our imperial influence in the region.
Moreover, the hypocrisy is historical. We should remind ourselves long before Trump, President Ronald Reagan supported the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein throughout his tenure — including support for his regime when it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, comparable to Assad, and in the Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88.
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 outlaws the use of chemical weapons and it is this protocol Trump cites as justification for the two bombings of Syrian territory.
Yet the Reagan administration knowingly violated the same protocol by aiding and abetting Hussein’s use of mustard gas in 1983, followed by the use of sarin gas as well against Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war, 1987-88.
Sarin gas was used in large quantities against Iranian forces, in one strike called the “Blessed Ramadan Offensive.” To further secure his rule, Hussein used nerve gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja in the north of Iraq, where 3,000-5,000 Kurdish civilians were massacred at the end of that war in 1988.
Why the U.S. support? The rationale is clear and cold, devoid of humanitarian ethical concerns. As Reagan communicated to then-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”
Hence, no holds barred. An Iraqi victory must be achieved at all costs. Estimates of the nerve-gas dead range into the thousands. And as with Assad’s apparent victory over Syrian rebels in 2018, so it was in 1988 that, with U.S. intelligence aid, Saddam was able to prevent an Iranian victory employing chemical weapons.
In this light, we should be unsurprised international opinion is unmoved and muted by Trump’s moralistic pretense. Our continued support for war in the Middle East belies the feigned interest in genuine compromise in the region.
The United States has the power to do better but we lack the leadership and the will to do so.
Michael O'Loughlin is a professor of political science at Salisbury University.
By assisting Saudi Arabia in its effort to control Yemen, we advance our imperial influence in the region.
Moreover, the hypocrisy is historical. We should remind ourselves long before Trump, President Ronald Reagan supported the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein throughout his tenure — including support for his regime when it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, comparable to Assad, and in the Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88.
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 outlaws the use of chemical weapons and it is this protocol Trump cites as justification for the two bombings of Syrian territory.
Yet the Reagan administration knowingly violated the same protocol by aiding and abetting Hussein’s use of mustard gas in 1983, followed by the use of sarin gas as well against Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war, 1987-88.
Sarin gas was used in large quantities against Iranian forces, in one strike called the “Blessed Ramadan Offensive.” To further secure his rule, Hussein used nerve gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja in the north of Iraq, where 3,000-5,000 Kurdish civilians were massacred at the end of that war in 1988.
Why the U.S. support? The rationale is clear and cold, devoid of humanitarian ethical concerns. As Reagan communicated to then-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”
Hence, no holds barred. An Iraqi victory must be achieved at all costs. Estimates of the nerve-gas dead range into the thousands. And as with Assad’s apparent victory over Syrian rebels in 2018, so it was in 1988 that, with U.S. intelligence aid, Saddam was able to prevent an Iranian victory employing chemical weapons.
In this light, we should be unsurprised international opinion is unmoved and muted by Trump’s moralistic pretense. Our continued support for war in the Middle East belies the feigned interest in genuine compromise in the region.
The United States has the power to do better but we lack the leadership and the will to do so.
Michael O'Loughlin is a professor of political science at Salisbury University.
Labels: Michael O'Loughlin, Middle East, Salisbury University, The Daily Times, Yemen
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home