Hatred of the West : Prejudices, Policies and Progress

There are many modern myths. Being anti-West is one of the lingering modern myths.

It is a 'strategic' myth. By this I simply mean that reactive anti-Western attitudes are based on flaws in strategic thinking. They are false too. They are failed in their productiveness and effectiveness.

So the hate-filled terrorist anti-Western attitudes of Al Qaeda is false. Equally, the intellectual Western anti-Western thinkers (with a focus on anti-US attitudes) are strategically wrong. They threaten to inject an irrationalism into modern policy thinking. In Europe, there is a mistaken anti-US pro-European attitude. I support the pro-US and pro-Europe attitude. In London and UK, there are very healthy pro-US attitudes. However, there are some anti-US attitudes e.g. Ken Livingstone former Mayor of London with his vitriolic attacks on President Bush and now on President Obama. Even in the USA, there are anti-USA attitudes. Professor Noam Chomsky is the most famous person in this field. He centres his criticism of the USA on its 'imperialism' and its support for 'brutal' dictatorships in the name of anti-Communism and now on the war on 'terror' ( including 'Islamic terrorism', 'nacro-terrorism', etc.).

I believe that Professor Noam Chomsky is the most serious critic of the USA. He represents the real intellectual weight of the logic of being anti-USA. I believe he is completely wrong. It is important to challenge his 'myths' by trying to understand US modern foreign policy goals to show their real achievements and failures. There is a need to inject critical thinking to defend the USA and the West generally.

It is undoubtedly true that the West has been imperialist. Classical imperialism was based on direct foreign rule of countries. This was the pattern of Victorian and pre-World War Two imperialism. National independence movements put an end to this type of imperialism across the world with some minor exceptions. Asia(includingMiddle Eastern), Africa and Latin America countries attained freedom over a period of time. Territorial imperialism has ended. Then a period of 'neo-colonialism' started. The term is misleading. Its main fault and weakness as a term is that it disguises the process of the end of 'neo-colonialism'. Emerging market economies show that development is happening in the world in a big way. This is taking away the economic basis of this 'neo-colonialism'. However, the critics of 'neo-colonialism' moved into the field of 'anti-globalisation' to attack this as a modern form of 'imperialism'. I believe this completely misreads the situation. In fact, globalisation has been a process for the economic empowerment of developing countries - making them into emerging economies through entry into global markets through cheap products and services or as producers of raw materials for the world economy.
Being anti-global is to stand in the path of the economic take-off of emerging economies. The elites understand this - however even they can falsely believe that being anti-West is a favourable position for their prosperity in the world - and in reality there is a new political struggle between the cosmopolitan elites of the world who stand for globalisation and the xenophobic nationalism of elites with their support for religious and cultural nationalism. There is a myriad of in-between positions too.

I wanted to shatter the myths about the USA in this field. The first point to realise about the USA is that it was born of an anti-colonial revolution against the British. USA Independence was independence from foreign rule across the Atlantic. USA was one of the FIRST modern anti-colonial revolutions in the world. In this, it was a ground-breaking trend led by 'white' people. This is the essence of understanding USA and its reality on imperialism. The second point about USA 'imperialism' is that it has not been about territorial rule with some minor or ad hoc exceptions (unlike European imperialism). USA rules over a few places, but tiny territories. I am happy to discuss this, but no-one serious will contest this point. However, the USA can be accused of neo-colonialism in two ways (or many more ways if 'cultural imperialism', 'religious imperialism' etc) are included. The first is that the USA in terms of territory have ruled by the might of their military power. There is no doubt that the USA has been in the 20th century during the two world wars and after that period (and is still in the 21st century) the dominant military power in the world. However, I would argue that it is too simplistic to state without an analysis of it.

The specifics of this military power need to be understood for a clearer understanding of it to make a full assessment of its 'imperialist' or 'neo-colonialist' nature. I do not remotely wish to argue that the USA has not been the dominant military power in this period - although it has been challenged in military terms and legally on this ability (via the UN veto by its rivals such as USSR and China during the Cold War period - and even by France as shown during the Iraq war). Clearly, there is an anti-USA nations camp across the world - with Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. - in this camp. This camp has grown since the end of the post-Cold War (1989 being the watershed in this process) after an initial kow-towing to USA military might. I would argue that the USA made a strategic mistake too because it did not understand its own power. The 'Project for an American Century' was a major failure - as it got knocked out politically over the Iraq war and then got bogged down in Afghanistan and even failed in dealing effectively with Al Qaeda (taking 10 years to capture Osama Bin Laden). This was an imperialist project.

My view is that the USA has 'imperialist' intentions, but it does not have an 'imperialist' heart. For instance, the USA failed in the Vietnam war despite the use of huge (and in many cases brutal military force) because of its own population with massive fissures in USA society over the war especially amongst the young. The USA population has an anti-war conscience (partially - not at all entirely motivated by its own war casualties). The Iraq war was an even bigger story and failure than the Vietnam War. In Iraq, the USA failed to construct a new state effectively by securing its law and order despite a quick win in the military battle to destroy Saddam regime's heavy military apparatus. It lost the 'guerilla' war. It also lost the moral war. Afghanistan is also taking its toll on the USA - being worn down. My view is that the USA population 'heart' is uncomfortable with war, despite some sections imperialist 'intentions'. In contrast, the USA did really help the 'free' nations and resistance movements of Europe to win the war against the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War. Ironically, it is good at fighting big power bullying and not good at fighting small countries or movements. 'Little' Cuba on its doorstep is still able to maintain its Communist regime after decades of different attempts to dislodge it. I believe that the USA is not a real 'anti-colonial' military power. It's track record on this is full of failure. Its successes are against big powers. It is good at protecting real freedom in Europe (by way of an example). This may seem like a very unorthodox view.

It is - it is neither based on USA imperialist intentions and seeking to disguise these. At the same time, nor is based on seeking to under-play the role of the USA as a leader in the anti-colonial freedom field against other big power bullies - such as Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan or Soviet Imperialism and Totalitarianism. This is why I believe that it is good at defending Israel - a small state being bullied by Arab and Muslim countries - based on big power type of bullying i.e. its own Arab and Muslim people are being bullied and repeated attempts to militarily dislodge Israel as a state through a combined campaign.

There is a second aspect of USA military might. This is support by the USA of brutal military dictatorships in the name of anti-Communism. As I stated earlier, this was positive when dealing with Soviet imperialism. However, the backing of the military dictatorships has been a strategic mistake - although many of those countries became democratic pro-Western nations by not wishing to submit to Communist imperialism. The truth is that the USA did become military super-power of the world after the Second World War and it was in competition with Soviet and Chinese imperialism. In this process, its simplistic policy of anti-Communism at any price did lead it to back military dictatorships (e.g. South Korea in Asia, Chile in Latin America, many in Africa, many in the Middle East). However, it did not abandon those nations when they became democracies - or the non-military regimes did not abandon the USA because they needed their military protection. For instance, South Korea does face a brutal military North Korean power and the USA guarantees South Korea's freedom and democracy (as well as economic success). This is a positive role it plays. I believe its defence of Israel is equally positive.

However, I do not wish to deny the failure of this policy because it was not clearly based on democracy. This issue is very much alive - whilst most countries of Asia and Latin America have democracy replacing military dictatorships - Middle East and Africa is still an outstanding issue in terms of the democratic deficit as well as a few countries in Asia (e.g. Burma) and Latin America (e.g. Venezuela). The Middle East democracy issue shows the real dilemma for USA policy-makers. It tried the military option - and failed. However, there is no Arab or Muslim global movement for democracy in the Middle East. There is a consensus of tolerating dictators. In contrast, the Commonwealth (former British Empire nations) has a clear pro-democracy policy and expulsions of non-democratic nations has been a practice. There is a growth of democracy in the Muslim world (e.g. Indonesia as the world's largest Muslim-majority state has become democratic and relinquished its military dictatorship, etc.). The USA has links with absolute rulers in the Middle East. It succeeded in getting rid of Saddam's dictatorial regime (which it had supported earlier), but failing to establish the peace. It has taken up a military campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya albeit in a more collective way with other partners (especially France and UK). It is seeking to stop Iran becoming a nuclear weapons power (a move with significant support across the Arab rulers fearing big power bullying and insurgency based on 'Islamic' totalitarian/dictatorial extremism). The USA is looking at its Middle East to restate a clear democratic policy (rhetorical rather than actual in some cases).

I will examine Africa at a later stage.

The USA also had a nuclear weapons advantage. This has been a positive advantage. It has handled its nuclear weapons power in a sensible way. I don't want to be uncritical. However, I believe that its nuclear weapons attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is debatable. It is possible that it did protect Japan from the Soviet Union and China. No wonder Japan still hosts a USA military base. I think the USA competition with the Soviets during the Cold War was a necessity - even the nuclear arms race. This does not make it a positive option - nuclear weapons cannot be seen as positive options.

My view is that an alliance with the West is healthy. The anti-Western regimes are generally dictatorships. Iran has show itself to be anti-democratic by the rejection of the USA (and West) in its revolution in 1979. The track record of those aligned with the West is clearly positive in terms of free speech and democracy and social progress.

Equally, I believe that economic progress in the modern world is based on open attitudes to global investment and the West is a healthy partner in any economic progress. China is a good case study for the benefits of this alliance. China showed this more than any other country. It entered into an alliance with the USA against the Soviets - during the Mao years! Then it established a great policy of inward investment with the USA as the critical partner. It invited USA companies to invest in 'free trade zones' (with almost zero levels of business regulation). USA is also a major consumer of Chinese goods - a massive market. On the other side, USA has $1.5 trillion debt with China. USA is also frustrated about the benefits of China's policy for its own companies. My point is that China has benefited enormously by its quiet pro-Western economic policy. China is very much a market economy asking the USA to list it as 'a free market economy' in its policy to obtain further investment. Anti-West rhetoric creates economic problems at different levels (e.g. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and Venezuela, etc.). Being anti-West leads to an inward erosion and degeneration of states.

I believe that 'Anti-West' attitudes are bad for progress in developing countries. They create xenophobic religious and cultural nationalism. The West is essential to a healthy policy in developing countries in terms of their own progress. The politics of anti-West are not suitable for the modern world. They arise from simplistic and crude formulas even at an intellectual level. There is a need to reject the anti-West perspective in the developing world. It is false thinking with very dangerous consequences. The West is not perfect - and being critical of it is healthy, but hatred is not. Let us have a new platform for a positive engagement with the West and developing countries - and bury the historical prison of outdated thinking and seek a new freedom based on a mutuality of modern relationships. I am definitely pro-West :and very proud of it too!