Thursday, September 16, 1999

Globocops with Guillotines

Globocops with Guillotines
Bevin Chu
September 16, 1999

America's self-appointed global interventionists, henceforth referred to as "Globocops," hold our Founding Fathers' political philosophy in ill-concealed contempt. Globocops on the Left and Globocops on the Right may butt heads on other issues, but the one thing they agree on is that our Founding Fathers' uncompromising "Mind Our Own Business" foreign policy is a quaint relic of a bygone "horse and buggy" era, irrelevant to either the liberal New World Order or the neo-con Unipolar World.

The Founding Fathers' stature as American national heroes has afforded them some immunity from frontal assaults on their intellectual legacy. Instead, Globocops on the Left and Right have manifested their contempt through benign, or should I say, malign neglect.

Globocops on the Left are the ideological spawn of America's first homegrown socialist, Woodrow Wilson. Globocops on the Left see themselves as "We are the World, We are the Children," social workers of the New World Order.

Globocops on the Right are the ideological spawn of America's first homegrown fascist, Theodore Roosevelt. Globocops on the Right see themselves as "We run the World, We are the Bosses," capo di tutti capi of the Unipolar World.

The common denominator is Globocops on the Left and Right alike demand American military intervention in distant lands even when the morally just and proper defense of America's homeland is not at issue. Globocops claim their "Have Gunboat, Will Travel" foreign policy constitutes an appropriate and necessary response to the complex realities of a shrinking and interrelated world.

Some of them may even believe this sophistry.

Globocops on the Left demand American military intervention in the Balkan Peninsula. They want to defend Albanians against "Serbian ethnic cleansing," even though Albanian KLA terrorists are the ones ethnically cleansing the Serbians.

Globocops on the Right demand American military intervention in the Taiwan Straits. They want to defend Taiwan Chinese against "communism," even though mainland Chinese are "capitalist roaders" busy dismantling their money-losing SOEs as fast as humanly possible, and the Taiwan separatist demagogues are disciples of Japanese neofascism.

The Globocops can't even tell the good guys from the bad guys. But they know they have to "do something." They're itching to "do something." That "something" usually involves killing lots of "evildoers." Preferably from 15,000 feet. Who are the "evildoers?" The Globocops aren't sure. But why worry? Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. Globocops on the Left are Tweedledum. Globocops on the Right are Tweedledumber. Or maybe vice versa.

Sir Isaac Newton once demurred he was able to see as far as he had only because he "stood on the shoulders of giants." The Globocops should try standing on the shoulders of foreign policy giants George Washington and John Quincy Adams. If they did, they might realize the folly of playing Globocops and robbers and desist from further undermining any remaining vestiges of international order in the world.

The Globocops have convinced themselves that their headlong undermining of long-established conventions of international law have assisted the birth of a New World Order of universal justice. The possibility they may have spilled open Pandora's Box, destroying what little hope the world had for a relatively harmonious and peaceful Twenty-first Century apparently never crossed their minds.

Globocops seldom spell out in so many words just what it is they think authorizes our federal Leviathan to initiate military aggression against foreign nations which have not attacked sovereign American territory. It sure as hell isn't our Constitution. Therefore it is necessary for classical liberal, Old Right and libertarian opponents of global intervention to spell out the Globocops' rationale in plain English.

In essence the Globocops' moral calculus goes something like this. Our nation is a "democracy." Being a "democracy" our government is "legitimate." Being "legitimate" our government is morally superior to "illegitimate" governments. Therefore our government is entitled to do "whatever is necessary" to put a stop to "unacceptable" behaviour by "illegitimate" governments.

This may represent the reasoning process of medieval Crusaders, Islamic Jihad and the Taliban. It was most certainly not the reasoning process of America's Founding Fathers.

George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796 urged future generations of Americans to:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all... It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and... great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that... such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?"

Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel recently vented his disgust with the Globocops' betrayal of our Founders' strict non-interventionism in more contemporary vernacular:

"We ought to be the good guys, and we aren't. We are meddling in other people's countries, bullying them, killing them, breaking international laws right and left, acting the hypocrite and being an all-around jerk of a nation. The fault lies with the civilian leadership, not with the military, and ultimately with us because we elect the civilian leadership. For a self-governing people, we haven't done such a hot job in recent years."

An email which recently turned up in my mailbox, penned by a "reluctant" Globocop speaks volumes about how far the level of American political discourse has declined since Washington spoke of "the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

Here is the text of this Globocop's letter, verbatim. I have not altered his spelling, punctuation, grammar or syntax.

"American's hate dictators. Mainland China is still ruled by dictators that surpress political opposition. American's consider democracy sacred. Taiwan is a democracy. American's don't like big bullies, especially when they pick on little guys. Mainland. American's like little guys. Taiwan. If mainland China tries to use force against Taiwan, America's will see it as a big bully dictator attacking a sacred democracy little guy. They will go to Taiwan's aid, even if it means nuclear war with China. This is how the majority of American's think. I live here, it is a democracy, so all I can do is hope than the men in Beijing will realize how the American public thinks and not do something extremely foolish and attack Taiwan."

Never mind that the ROC under Lee Teng-hui is not an authentic democracy, but a Marcos-style dictatorship. Never mind that former Justice Minister Liao Cheng-hao, who resigned last year in disgust, just blew the whistle on Lee Teng-hui, confirming what every cab driver in Taipei already knew, that "Mr. Democracy" routinely resorts to police state tactics such as illegal wiretaps of opposition politicians. Never mind that "elective monarch" Lee Teng-hui is actually less answerable and less responsive to the ROC's Legislative Yuan and National Assembly than Jiang Zemin is to the PRC's National People's Congress. Our reluctant Globocop's mind was made up and he wasn't about to be confused by the facts.

Our "reluctant" Globocop went on to share in almost erotic detail the destruction the Pentagon's cutting edge military technology would inflict on an egregiously overmatched China, concluding with:

"[If] the Chinese leadership attacks Taiwan, then China likely winds up in chaos or as radioactive dust, depending on how things play out."

This "reluctant" Globocop's thinly-veiled, macho threat that the World's Only Remaining Superpower would launch a nuclear first strike against a post-communist China committed to radical reform, on the pretext of "promoting human rights" was accompanied by a disclaimer: his remarks were merely a warning from a friend of the Chinese people, that he himself naturally deplores such a prospect.

As much as I would like to claim these were the rantings of some rabid Taiwan separatist, they were not. They were written by a fellow American, "native" born. His identity does not matter. This is not about a specific individual, but how human beings in general can descend to such depths of depravity, even while stroking themselves for their moral virtue.

What matters is how this "reluctant" Globocop's alarmingly simplistic moral calculus, lending a veneer of legitimacy to his darker impulses, could express itself in an obscene eagerness to reduce unseen strangers to "radioactive dust." Did this "reluctant" Globocop not declare that tender concern for victims was his original motive for "humanitarian intervention?" Now suddenly he is only mildly perturbed by the prospect these same victims may wind up as radioactive dust alongside their victimizers? Is it unfair to suggest that the real reason he failed to notice this glaring contradiction in his moral posturing was he never really cared about the victims to begin with?

This is the mind-numbing "justice" the Globocops are prepared to administer to any "evildoer" who dares defy the Globocops' Benevolent Global Hegemony, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be caught at Ground Zero. I for one cannot believe the vast majority of my fellow Americans share this reluctant Globocop's transparent, cold-blooded hypocrisy.

The visionary American political philospher Isabel Paterson, in a timeless essay entitled "The Humanitarian with the Guillotine" recounted how "humanitarians" throughout history have monotonously reenacted an identical tragedy, over and over again. Every time humanitarians have marched confidently in lockstep down Roads Paved with Good Intentions. Every time the intended destination has been Utopia. Every time the actual destination has always been a town square featuring a blood-soaked guillotine, with the fingers of the humanitarian wrapped around the guillotine's operating lever.

The Humanitarian with the Guillotine

No comments:

Post a Comment