Community as an
International Idea or the Democratisation of International Relations?
It was not so long ago that the Labour government
was said to have an "ethical foreign policy", or, more accurately,
that its Foreign Secretary said that its foreign policy had an "ethical
dimension". This it was that the government said was the underlying motive
of its foreign policy.
But this shifted when Robin Cook spoke at length on British
foreign policy some months ago. He repudiated the idea of an "ethical
foreign policy" as misleading, presumably in part because it had become a
stick with which to beat the Labour government. "Enlightened
self-interest" was to become the cornerstone of British foreign policy.
Tony Blair, in his speech to the Global Ethics Foundation
at Tübigen University in Germany, now states that "how we
collectively respond to globalisation" will only succeed in bridging the
gap between on the one hand the aspirations to international peace, security,
good neighbourliness, human rights and the "dignity and worth of the human
person" and on the other the reality of today's world "if we start to
develop a doctrine of international community based on the principle of
enlightened self-interest. As within countries, so between countries." It
is clear that the British government is determined to follow a policy of
self-interest, but who is to declare that it is "enlightened"? In
fact, it can be seen to be a declaration by Tony Blair that the values that are
promoted by the Labour government and the English bourgeoisie are the ones that
should be accepted by all as "enlightened". That this is to be the
cornerstone of the relations internationally between states, so then only those
states which accept the values and policies which the big powers declare are
"enlightened" are to be allowed the privilege to exist, that only
then will they be allowed to live in international peace, security and good
neighbourliness with the big powers such as Britain. Of course, this is the
modern-day equivalent of civilising the backward nations with the rifle in one
hand and the prayer-book in the other. It has in fact nothing to do with being
"good neighbours", but everything to do with the relations of
exploitation between the big powers, Britain in particular, and the developing
nations.
And, indeed, "as within countries, so between
countries". A state cannot at the same time have an enlightened policy
domestically, yet exhibit big power chauvinism as the basis of its foreign
policy, and vice versa. Its foreign policy is an extension of its policy at
home. Tony Blair and Robin Cook seem completely unashamed to state that the
government's policy is one of "enlightened self-interest". This, as a
stated policy, is the outlook of the liberal bourgeoisie. Of course, it must
follow the path of self-interest because is this not what makes the world go
round? Everyone must have the "equal opportunity" to follow their
self-interest, while the unfortunate thing is that only those with merit, with
the natural ability to become one of the privileged few will make it to the
top. And because it is so "enlightened", the elite will be able to
demand that these same self-interested values - ultimately based on the
"rights" of private property - should be adopted by the whole
society, or by the "community as an international idea". In the same
spirit, rehearsing to the letter the catechism of the 19th century laissez
faire capitalists, Tony Blair asserts that "free trade is the key to
prosperity for poorer nations and essential for the competitiveness of the
richer ones. Protectionism on the other hand is the result of short-sighted
view of the national interest".
The only problem is that we are now living in the 21st and
not the 19th century. The age of laissez faire capitalism and the battles that
were fought for and against protectionism came to an end for good with the
inter-imperialist first world war. Now the huge monopolies and transnational
companies strive for domination and control of markets, and demand that the
states globally should become subordinate to this need of the capitalist
monopolies, not for "free trade", but that the whole human and
material assets of nations should be put at their disposal. The bourgeoisie has
completely abandoned even the pursuit of the national interest in this context.
This is the content of globalisation at the beginning of the 21st century, and
it is a content that the "South" countries, the developing world, are
uniting against, while peoples everywhere are demanding an end to this
globalisation which negates their right to self-determination and to choose
their own path of social development. This is not at all what Tony Blair has in
mind when he speaks of the collective response to globalisation so as to bridge
the gap between the people's aspirations and today's reality. But if today's
reality is looked in the eye, the collective response cannot be to retreat to
19th century values. This is only done by the governments of "progressive
governance" such as that of Tony Blair to entrench the rule of the
financial oligarchy, to pursue such paths of "enlightened
self-interest" as the bombing of and genocidal sanctions against Iraq, the
bombing of and armed intervention in Yugoslavia, the blockade of Cuba and the
DPRK and similar pressures against other countries, the escalation of the arms
race on the grounds of some spurious threat by "rogue states" who
must not be allowed to pursue a path which is to stand against the hegemony of
the big powers. Though these criminal acts are carried out with an ideological
offensive that they are done with a high moral purpose and to further
"common values and mutual responsibility", yet they are still acts
which are carried out for the geo-political, strategic and economic
"self-interest" of the big monopolies, the states which do their
bidding and the military, political and economic blocs of those states.
The collective response to globalisation which is required
and which the people aspire to and are fighting for is something quite
different from that put forward by Tony Blair in promoting "community as
an international idea". Tony Blair's "international community"
is nothing but shorthand for those countries which put their hand to the Paris
Charter, and which Anglo-American imperialism and the big powers of Europe are
trying to corral together into the community of "progressive
governance" or the "Third Way". His "doctrine of
international community based on the principle of enlightened
self-interest" is the imposition of those values and that social and
political system which serves those values of globalisation, of
"multi-party democracy", of the kind of "human rights"
which have their basis in the private ownership of the means of production. The
collective response of democratic humankind is for the democratisation of
international relations. The principles they base themselves on are not of
"enlightened self-interest" but of support for all peoples everywhere
who are fighting for their national and social rights. These principles entail
the equality of all sovereign states, that is, the recognition of the equality
of all sovereign nations, big or small. They entail the non-intervention in the
internal affairs of other countries and relations not of exploitation but of
equality and mutual benefit, based on peaceful coexistence. It follows that
there must be no economic, political and military "blocs", and also,
in the case of Britain, that it should end all its colonial and neo-colonial
relations with other countries and withdraw from all the big power blocs, and
that every people should have its right to follow its own path of social
development and its independence respected. As for the United Nations, to which
Tony Blair refers in passing in terms of the "gap between promise and
performance", this "gap" can only be ended by ending its
manipulation as the tool of the big powers, and that it should become a genuine
forum for the moderation of international relations by ensuring that all
nations, big or small, have an equal say and equal input, and the situation
where the big five permanent members of the Security Council have the veto be
ended.
This is the only way forward in the 21st century in
"renewing the institutions of international co-operation" which Tony
Blair refers to in his speech. It is a path not of "building alliances
between the main players", as is his solution, but of the
self-determination of nations and relations of equality and mutual benefit
between modern sovereign states.
