The US in the world: Barack Obama may turn out to be no different than previous presidents

Most people in the world, according to an Associated Press report, prefer Barack Obama for president of the United States. This optimism is somewhat understandable, given the global vigilantism of the ruling cabal that was identified by Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as the chief of staff of former foreign secretary Colin Powell. The cabal includes President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice and former secretary for defence Donald Rumsfeld.

However, for those people around the world who are excited about the probability of an Obama presidency, I want to urge a moderation of expectations — a reality check, as it were.

Within the US, the reality of President Obama may well be submitted as evidence that black people in the US live, work and generally engage fellow citizens on an even playing field. This is far from the truth. A black president may well set back whatever gains have been made in black emancipation in the US since the 1960s. This issue can be discussed at another time. The implication that President Obama will change the role and place of the US in the world is ill-conceived and could do with an historical reality check. Internationally, at least since the end of World War II, the election of a new US president has rarely, if ever, rolled back or stalled this country’s more aggressive, even bellicose, foreign policies and adventures, and the ways in which such policies have been justified.

The divine origins of US foreign policy
Intimations of an enlightened (one that is good for the world) new president notwithstanding, the roots of that which has increasingly been referred to as an “American empire” are deeply embedded in the exceptionalist self-image of the US.

This exceptionalist self-image is to a large extent (and historically) shaped by the demonisation of others, out of which usually emerges a self-image of almost divine righteousness. Early evidence of this process of demonisation can be found, for example, in the expression by former president Theodore Roosevelt that it was futile “to apply to savages the rules of international morality” and that “[t]he most righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman”. By calling others “savages” it becomes easy to wage war against them. (For a brief introduction on the practice of “othering” follow this link.)

Roosevelt’s statement was shaped, of course, by the belief that white settlers in North America had an almost divine right to expand across the continent. This exceptionalist thinking has been a constant feature of US foreign policy over the years. It has also played a significant role in the current Bush administration’s approach to the world.

The basic departure point of the US’s self-image and general approach to the world in the early 21st century was the assumption that US values were universal and, more crucially, that the US had an almost divine right to export such values to others, as evidenced in occupied Iraq. This much can be gleaned from the statement by one of President Bush’s former advisers, Lawrence Lindsey, who in 2000 said:

“America is not just a country; it is also a cause. As the standard-bearer in the cause of freedom, America today is the only country that firmly asserts the universal applicability of its founding principles to all men, regardless of nationality. “

In other words, if Washington considers another society (say Iraq) as being inconsonant with the values held by the US (those which, among other, were expressed by Lindsey), war can and may be waged against that society on the basis that (as Roosevelt implied) such wars may be the most righteous of all. In the specific context of the Iraq war, President Bush was described by Time magazine as “a righteous president” — the quotation marks are my own. The reference was made after Bush made a statement following the inhuman treatment by US troops of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, saying: “Our finest moments [as a nation] have come when we have faithfully served the cause of justice for our own citizens, and for the people of other lands.”

This arrogance was met with a pithy response from a Jordanian business leader, who told Time: “You occupy Iraq for the strategic and economic benefits. You are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. Halliburton and Bechtel are running everything, at enormous profits. And then I watch Bush on al-Arabiya and all I see is his sense of moral superiority. He brings democracy and freedom to the barbarians. But who are the barbarians?”

A self-image of superiority and exceptionalism, of the US being “a cause” brought to the world by a type of divine intervention and of demonising “others”, is quite clearly and inextricably woven into US foreign policy. There is little evidence that the US will, overnight, following the election of any new president, cease to pursue its “interests” without violating the sovereignty, independence and basic dignity of others in other parts of the world. There is also little to no evidence that the material realities of such policies will be reversed by any new president. There is no evidence, for instance, that the US military will leave occupied Iraq because of the election of a new president; there is little reason to believe that the US will close any of its military bases all around our planet (the US European Command in Germany is responsible for “13-million square miles in 89 countries or territories” around the world); there is no reason to believe that the US will not continue to dominate international relations in general …

Let us be clear. There may be some among us who, not unfairly, claim that the US has been responsible for the creation of international organisations like the United Nations. This is true. We should not lose sight, however, of the fact that the US purposefully manipulated the inception process to ensure that the UN served the interests of Washington. Similarly, by playing a vanguard role in expanding capitalism across the world, some may suggest that the US has played a positive role. However, this process was driven, it would seem, by narrow self-interest and the preservation of the US’s position as the dominant power. Consider, for instance, the following exhortation in 1948, by George Kennan, the director for policy planning at the US Department of State for Foreign Affairs:

“We have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6,3% of its population … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity … We should cease to talk about the raising of standards, human rights and democracy … The less we are … hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

While predictions are usually the preserve of prophets, pastors, boardwalk fortune-tellers and liberal economists, it is difficult to see the US, as a dominant self-righteous — or even a “bad” — actor in international relations, acting any differently after the election of a new president in 2008.