These are some of what I was struggling to say, which have been rendered below more elegantly, by Professor Lai Olurode
Culled from The Guardian Newspapers October 2, 2007
Backlash of America's moral elasticity
http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/edito...nion/article04
By Lai Olurode
ONE of the distinctive features of America's political practices and which recommends it to the world at large and the developing countries in particular which have difficulties managing pluralism is America's capacity to accommodate diversities. America affords every group, regardless of their idiosyncracies to flourish to the extent to which America's historical realities could afford. Secondly, over the years, America has continued to attract more immigrants from the liberated colonies than even the former colonial overlords are willing to do.
Through its diversity visa lottery programme, America seeks to draw people from countries that are considered to be under-represented in its population. And these are happening when the European Union is hardening its immigration regime on Africans. Thirdly, until recently, America has the most generous provisions for acquiring its citizenship by foreign born. It is only in America that someone like Barak Obama can dream so big. The fourth point relates to Islam and global politics today. Though, America is generally perceived in the Muslim world to be fighting Islam, but in reality, it is doubtful if any country outside the Muslim nations commit more resources to the understanding of Islam than America.
Leading American and western political theorists were initially so confident in the triumph of America's values globally once the Soviet Union was dismembered, thank to glasnost and perestroika. America naturally assumed that that it had obtained a licence to ride roughshod over the rest of the globe. The eventual Macdonization of the world had been accomplished, so it thought. A major pre-occupation had become the exportation of the manual on liberal democracy to the developing countries and these became an enterprise of a sort and around which many fat consultancies were built..
With America's previous adversary yet to recover from the doldrums into which it had been thrown since the collapse of the Berlin wall, America has not only increased its cultural presence globally, America's military presence globally never reached its current status even at the climax of the cold war.
On several occasions, America had defied the United Nations and without any sanction being contemplated. On occasions, it had resorted to crippling the activities of the UN by simply withholding its subventions, and these can be substantial. Only America could breath life into and out of international protocols and treaties. America chooses which international law to obey. And this is America's death knell. None to check and moderate America's excesses.
The countries of the world that had looked up to America with envy, pride and great admiration for reasons of its respect for the rule of law soon discovered,
to their chagrin that convenience and interest rather than any abstract concept as the rule of law constitutes America's ground norm. It was laid bare that there was no overriding morality that drives America's engagement with the world. America's friends become befuddled at reconciling the patent contradictory postures on broadly similar issues.
In the eyes of the oppressed people the world that had looked up to America,
America's morality becomes so elastic that it can be constructed to fit and justify even grotesque settings. It could decide to lend support to dictators as it could to those who espouse freedom. Thus though, Egypt is a darling, Zimbabwe is under a dictator. It cannot be democracy if Hamas won an election. Israel is to have nuclear weapon but not Iran. Consistency and fairness can readily be sacrificed on the alter of convenience. The resulting backlash is the dymistification of America.
The increasing challenges to the U.S. global hegemony and the growing ant-U.S. feelings are being fed by America's failure to uphold its long cherished value of doing justice in all cases and to all manners of people. Inconsistency and moral elasticity are the natural habitat of hostility and political disenchantment. And the challenges to the U.S. increasing visibility are coming from the most unlikely sources. From Iran to Iraq and from Zimbabwe to Venezuela and to parts of Africa, people are expressing anti-U.S. sentiments. I have listened to favourable comments on the BBC about Robert Mugabe's address at the UN. Robert Mugabe, usually at his best when in a belligerent mood, pointedly said of the president of America. W. B.Bush 'His hands drip with innocent blood of many nationalities. He kills in Afghanistan. And this is supposed to be our master on human rights. What rank hypocrisy'.
We should not make the mistake of believing that the presidents of Zimbabwe, Iran and Venezuela are admired by many but symbolically, they spoke the minds of millions who are flabbergasted by the patent elasticity of America's morality. Frustration is the push that is forcing people to latch on Mugabe's and similar invectives.
Unfortunately, there had been instances when the U.S. officials had had been at the receiving end of this backlash. Sometimes ago, the fiery London mayor, Ken Livingstone, a labour veteran, hit at the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Roberts Holmes Tuttle, for failing to pay tolls on the U.S. embassy cars. In normal times, this lapse could have been overlooked. Ken Livingstone was known to be opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. And in his letter of resignation in 2003, the U.S. ambassador to Greece was quoted to have written inter alia thus: "Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs are fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests".
I also have a personal experience of this backlash. Recently, l was involved in an academic engagement under the sponsorship of an American organisation in East Africa. I was advised to play down the American connection in order not to provoke hostility and suspicion from the local population. I just marvel at the everyday experiences of those who in the course of their duties have to parade their American identity.
The U.S. really needs to return to the golden era of its foreign policy when its interests and those of the majority of the world are not diametrically opposed. This would reduce global tension and acts of terrorism. The U.S. itself would be relieved of the monumental human and material costs of policing the world.
The U.S. moral authority would be restored and this would signal the demise of moral elasticity and moral ambiguities. The world would be better for this and America can re-channel resources that are tied down in military campaigns toward human development. The time has come to end the indefinability of America's morality.
Professor Olurode teaches Sociology