FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Foreign Policy White Paper: a Plea to See Things as They Are

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

— George Orwell.

First, let me start with a stereotypical Jesuit habit: for what you are about to read, I seek forgiveness not approval. [No doubt this slanders the Jesuits: my excuse is that I was taught by an order of priests founded in post-revolutionary France who were not especially confraternal whenever the Society of Jesus was mentioned – a disposition that only encouraged me to redefine some of their alleged conceits as intellectual virtues].

Accordingly, in the light of the evolving character of current global politics in general and the forthcoming Australian Foreign Policy White Paper in particular, there is an overwhelming need to abandon the exsanguinated accounts on offer in the great majority of media reports, general commentaries, and academic journals. This site, however, has provided many exceptions, most notable among them the recent posts by Richard Butler, Quentin Dempster, and James O’Neil.

What follows is an extension of their arguments by way of a synopsis of prevailing conditions among the many countries that now constitute the US-dominated system of alliances and strategic partnerships. By way of philosophical orientation it follows the injunction of George Orwell in a similar time: “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

To begin, democracy is a declaratory and not an operational mode of governance; oligarchies and dictatorships reign expressing their putative political philosophy in simpleminded terms indistinguishable from Social Darwinism. Disintegration in the form of civil strife, anger, violence, socioeconomic collapse, homelessness, sexism, cruelty against minorities and the poor follows naturally and logically, as does depression and the sense of futility among the governed. Understanding that conventional politics has nothing to offer them, they eventually express their rage by irrationally supporting those that promise to improve their lot, or worse, those that guarantee to destroy the current establishment in its entirety and restore the exclusively defined nation and culture to an imagined antediluvian unity and grandeur. Without exception, violence – threatened or actual – will be deployed in order to achieve this objective.

To a greater or lesser extent these conditions are widespread: in Asia, IndiaJapan, and the Philippines critically informed commentary by writers of sound mind and sober judgement has come to the fore and with deeply concerning conclusions. Within NATO’s European membership, Turkey has descended into an unapologetic dictatorship, and the “toxic ideological brew” in the politics of Hungary and Poland, all the way through to government level, is now officially recognised by the European Union as a threat to fundamental democratic values. And then, not in government, but influential nevertheless, is the gathering right-wing wave of racism, resurgent nationalism and xenophobia in Austria, France, Holland, and the United Kingdom. Overshadowing even these transformations is the realisation of previously embryonic forces in the United States that have gestated into the politically regressive phenomenon of President Donald Trump.

What connects them, and they all have in common, is a cluster of features which, briefly described, includes: life conceived as a form of permanent warfare; an impatience to commit to wars of choice; a cult of tradition; the toleration of contradictions if they support the political cause; an hostility to new truths which might render the overall beliefs false; a rejection of Enlightenment rationality; distrust of the intellectual world and an obsession with action for its own sake; holding disagreement and dissent to be treasonous; fear of difference; appeals to those who feel besieged or alienated and frustrated by change or disparities of wealth by promising the restoration of a clear social identity; contempt for the weak; a disdain for women accompanied by the condemnation of nonstandard sexual behaviour; an underlying contempt for “the people” once they have fulfilled the role of theatrical props; and a form of communicating marked by an impoverished vocabulary and elementary syntax.

There is no ideological center, only rhetoric; no coherence, just discombobulation. Where one of these features exist, it is common for other to “coagulate” around it. Its strength lies in its emotional appeal to an imagined era convivial to the displaced.

The name for this form of thinking and acting which has permeated so much of the politics of what is loosely called the Western Alliance is Fascism. Needless to say it is a term that most writers have eschewed: when confronting the politics described above the preference has been to see them as outbreaks of authoritarianism, even populist authoritarianism. Rightly, they might say, where is the rampant anti-Semitism, where are the death camps, and how is it that citizens in the US conduct their lives in more or less unmolested ways?

The answers are quite clear: there is such a thing as participatory fascism and frightened and insecure people are likely candidates to practice it. More significantly, however, the reflex to exclusively define fascism as Nazism robs us of the understandings of Ur Fascism, or Eternal Fascism elaborated by the renowned Italian intellectual, Umberto Eco, in an extraordinarily prescient essay published in the New York Review of Books in 1995. Specifically, the conditions referred to above are those found in the Italian variant of fascism and that alone should provoke a more inclusive definition in these times.

To absolve current fascists by finding them a variant of authoritarianism is to fall back on the bastardised, but indulgent understanding that US Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick provided the Reagan Administration. Then, she was concerned to establish that Soviet bloc and other Communist regimes were totalitarian and thus anathema, irredeemable, but that US-supported anti-communist, militaristic regimes who professed to be pro-Western were merely “authoritarian” and thus reformable.

At considerable cost to those who suffered under American patronage she was wrong then. And Australia will be wrong, and to considerable cost once again, if the language and explicit understandings of the White Paper fall back on obfuscation and the national tradition of obsequiousness in alliance politics and allow them to overrule Orwell’s “restatement of the obvious.”   There’s a passage in Berthold Brecht’s The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui that is worth recalling:

If we could learn to look instead of gawking
. We’d see the horror in the face of farce,
If only we would act instead of talking,
We would not always end up on our arse.

More articles by:

Michael McKinley taught international relations and strategy in the Department of Politics, UWA.  From 1988 to 2014 he taught international relations and strategy at the ANU. He is currently a member of the Emeritus Faculty at the ANU. 

April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
Ted Rall
Stop Letting Trump Distract You From Your Wants and Needs
Steve Klinger
The Cautionary Tale of Donald J. Trump
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Conflict Over the Future of the Planet
Cesar Chelala
Gideon Levy: A Voice of Sanity from Israel
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail