May 27, 2015
Palestinian protesters take part in a demonstration organised by the Islamic movement against the death sentence to Egypt’s ousted president Mohamed Morsi, in the town of Kfar Kana, in northern Israel, on May 23, 2015. Morsi was among more than 100 defendants ordered by an Egyptian court to face the death penalty for their role in a mass jailbreak during the 2011 uprising. His rule lasted just one year before mass protests spurred then-army chief and now President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to topple him in July 2013. AFP
It would not be an exaggeration to state that we are living in times which are marked by a degree of 'international disorder'. The UN, quite understandably, cannot do much in the face of this 'anarchy' on account of its obligation to be respectful towards and sensitive to the sovereignty of states and issues flowing from it. For example, what could the UN do, at most, in law and order terms, about states which are suspected of fomenting terrorism and backing terror organizations?
The current trials centering on former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and a number of secular and liberal opponents of Egypt’s authoritarian al-Sisi administration are a veritable gauge of not only Egypt’s accommodation of dissent and opposition but an acid test of the US’ commitment to democratic change the world over, since Egypt is backed by the US. Two questions to be raised are: How would the US view these trials? Would it oppose them on the grounds that they run contrary to liberal-democratic principles? After all, liberal and secular quarters are on trial.
If the above second poser could be answered in the affirmative, the issue that arises from it is whether the US would bring pressure on the al-Sisi administration to increasingly democratize itself and render itself more people-friendly. If the US does compel Egypt to develop in these directions, one could be satisfied that principle has triumphed over political expediency on the part of the US. So, where would the US go from here as regards Egypt?
While only time would answer this question fully, suffice it to note that over the decades the US has not hesitated to firmly back authoritarian regimes whose human rights records did not usually stand up to scrutiny. This was the case in particularly the Cold War years. In those times, battling communism was very high on the US’ foreign relations programme and US support for regimes that were seen as repressive was only to be expected. Where these administrations stood in relation to democratic development did not seem to bother the US much. Just two cases in point were the Shah of Iran and President Ferdinand Marcos in the seventies decade.
The compulsions stemming from communism are absent today and the democratic world would expect the US to be the driving force in global democratization, if democratic ideals are indeed motivating the US. However, as matters stand, the US does not seem to be unduly perturbed by the fact that some of the states which were prime sites of the ‘Arab Spring’ are not fast developing on democratic lines; Libya being a case in point. Accordingly, the observer cannot be faulted for inferring from these premises that Realpolitic considerations and not democratic ideals have been guiding the US in its dealings with some of the countries which were up in revolt against repressive rulers.
On the other hand, the US is currently in a constructive engagement with its one-time major foes in the communist world, Cuba and Vietnam. In the latter cases, economic and material considerations seem to be driving US policy as well as that of the communist states in question. Such pragmatism in the foreign policy of the US lends credence to the thesis that ‘Economics drives politics.’ These developments ought to convince some of Sri Lanka’s ageing ‘Leftists’ in particular that simple-mindedness in the study of International Relations could be most damaging from the viewpoint of getting at the truth.. The truth is that the times we are living in are far more complex than those that obtained in times of the Cold War.
While on the subject of pragmatism, it needs to be pointed out that the same consideration is guiding Sri Lanka’s foreign policy too, to a degree. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera was quoted saying in a newspaper commentary recently that it is this country’s national interest that is now at the heart of its foreign policy. Non-alignment is seen by him as ‘obsolete’. It is this spirit of pragmatism which has enabled Sri Lanka to enter into more amicable ties with the West at present. Such foreign policy orientations are far more beneficial to this country than the xenophobic foreign policy outlook which characterized the Mahinda Rajapaksa years. However, Non-alignment in the sense of friendship towards all countries, should continue to be one of Sri Lanka’s fundamental foreign policy parameters.
It would not be an exaggeration to state that we are living in times which are marked by a degree of 'international disorder'. The UN, quite understandably, cannot do much in the face of this 'anarchy' on account of its obligation to be respectful towards and sensitive to the sovereignty of states and issues flowing from it. For example, what could the UN do, at most, in law and order terms, about states which are suspected of fomenting terrorism and backing terror organizations? For, there are clear limits to which external actors, even enjoying huge legitimacy, could be seen as 'interfering' in the domestic issues of states.
But terrorism is contributing substantially to the sense of 'disorder' which is cuarrently pervading the international system. The irony is that the US is compelled to use all the resources and 'alliances' at its command to stem this rot, essentially through the exercise of coercion, which is not the approach to conflict-resolution one would expect of the ' mightiest democracy'. For example, the US is currently fighting along with the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council in the Middle East to bring the IS to heel. The intention of the alliance is to diminish the destructive capability of the IS but would not we be having on our hands an uncontainable spiral of violence which would eventually reduce all concerned to losers?
All this may not be lost on the US and its backers but state actors and their allies cannot be expected to try out peaceful but long drawn out means of conflict-containment when their short and medium term interests are at stake. And power, energy and immediate material requirements constitute some of these interests. For instance, it is through the Gulf region that a considerable amount of the West's oil and merchandise is shipped. Besides, Iraq has always been seen as vital by the West in view of its huge oil wealth. Clearly, it would not be in the interests of the West if the IS and other 'enemy' quarters obstruct the routes through which the West acquires a considerable amount of its strategic and other requirements. Likewise, the anti-democratic trends in allies such as Egypt may have to be winked at since they help maintain a pro-West power balance in Northern Africa.
Accordingly, it is difficult to view current international politics other than from a Political Realism perspective. Considering that the US and its allies are currently compelled to secure their national interest by mainly coercive means, the observer would be misleading himself by adopting an idealistic stand point when evaluating current developments on the world political scene. But the use of force begets 'anarchy' and 'disorder',which have as their correlative intense international uncertainty.
27/05/2015
.jpg)
AG recommends to Supreme Court Not to arrest Tiran
