That was the question posed just over an hour ago by Sean Lay on Radio 4's The World This Weekend.
I don't recall it ever being asked if, given Georgia's aggression in South Ossetia, Russia could 'afford' to respect Georgian sovereignty. Nor whether, given Kuwait's slant oil drilling of Iraqi reserves, Iraq could afford to respect their sovereignty. In the latter case, the question has increased relevance since the US National Security Strategy has long since stated that the US has the right to use military force to protect its overseas economic interests and energy supplies (and access to foreign markets).
There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that there are circumstances in which a compelling case can be made that a country's sovereignty can be outweighed by other factors. The important point, however, is that the issue here is not that the media is evaluating, in each case, the arguments for respecting a given state's sovereignty. They have not weighed Pakistani sovereignty against US interests and Georgian sovereignty against Russian interests and ruled in favour of US action and against Russian action. Instead, the pertinent point is that, of the two, only the US is assumed to have the right to make such calculations in the first place. This is not even said outright because it does not need to be -it is simply understood. The US, as the imperial power, is understood to have interests that outrank those of anyone else and, by virtue of its status as the 'Leader of the Free World', the right to take decisions that are denied to the lesser peoples of the world.
It is true that there may be some tactical discussion of the costs and benefits of these decisions. So, in the case of bombing Pakistan, the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, is permitted to question whether the bombings further the self-evident US intention to 'win hearts and minds'. He is even allowed to make the most powerful criticism a respectable journalist may make of their political masters, that they are not pursuing their stated strategy very well. But Bennett-Jones is 'taken aback' that the Pakistanis resent being shredded by US ordnance to the point that a secular Pakistani -who cannot therefore be said to 'hate our freedoms’ - can ask about the Americans "What are they doing here 12,000 miles away from home?" Of course, it's an obvious question to almost anyone but a carefully trained journalist. Bennett-Jones, on the other hand, has to wrap up such thorny questions -and 'the familiar complaints about foreign policy' - in the soft comforting blanket of 'anti-Americanism'. Corresponding western 'anti-Russianism' does not exist in the lexicon -that was merely legitimate criticism of Russia's refusal to understand that invading sovereign states "is simply not the way that international relations can be run in the 21st century" -unless, of course, that we decide that we cannot afford not to.
I don't recall it ever being asked if, given Georgia's aggression in South Ossetia, Russia could 'afford' to respect Georgian sovereignty. Nor whether, given Kuwait's slant oil drilling of Iraqi reserves, Iraq could afford to respect their sovereignty. In the latter case, the question has increased relevance since the US National Security Strategy has long since stated that the US has the right to use military force to protect its overseas economic interests and energy supplies (and access to foreign markets).
There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that there are circumstances in which a compelling case can be made that a country's sovereignty can be outweighed by other factors. The important point, however, is that the issue here is not that the media is evaluating, in each case, the arguments for respecting a given state's sovereignty. They have not weighed Pakistani sovereignty against US interests and Georgian sovereignty against Russian interests and ruled in favour of US action and against Russian action. Instead, the pertinent point is that, of the two, only the US is assumed to have the right to make such calculations in the first place. This is not even said outright because it does not need to be -it is simply understood. The US, as the imperial power, is understood to have interests that outrank those of anyone else and, by virtue of its status as the 'Leader of the Free World', the right to take decisions that are denied to the lesser peoples of the world.
It is true that there may be some tactical discussion of the costs and benefits of these decisions. So, in the case of bombing Pakistan, the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, is permitted to question whether the bombings further the self-evident US intention to 'win hearts and minds'. He is even allowed to make the most powerful criticism a respectable journalist may make of their political masters, that they are not pursuing their stated strategy very well. But Bennett-Jones is 'taken aback' that the Pakistanis resent being shredded by US ordnance to the point that a secular Pakistani -who cannot therefore be said to 'hate our freedoms’ - can ask about the Americans "What are they doing here 12,000 miles away from home?" Of course, it's an obvious question to almost anyone but a carefully trained journalist. Bennett-Jones, on the other hand, has to wrap up such thorny questions -and 'the familiar complaints about foreign policy' - in the soft comforting blanket of 'anti-Americanism'. Corresponding western 'anti-Russianism' does not exist in the lexicon -that was merely legitimate criticism of Russia's refusal to understand that invading sovereign states "is simply not the way that international relations can be run in the 21st century" -unless, of course, that we decide that we cannot afford not to.
Nice to see you back, and on the ball as usual G1.
Posted by: Sue S | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 00:19
yes nice to see you back; One can always use the same frame around a different picture, eh?
Posted by: tjerk | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 11:27