Holden Caulfield
10th January 2010, 14:57
Critically analyse the role of theory as a framework for generating specific political outcomes in international politics
In this essay we shall discuss and dissect the role of theory in international politics, using critical analysis to demonstrate how theories can, and have, been used to justify and instigate policy decisions. We shall also “open to scrutiny otherwise hidden agendas, power centres, and assumptions”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn1) found in existing theories; and explain the effects these have and for what motives they are used. Such myths are the assumptions and biases that are found throughout society, ranging from the idea of a benevolent hero (seen in children’s stories as studied by Jane Yolen) to concepts such as poverty being an unavoidable condition. Weber states “The Myths function in International Relations is the transformation of what is particular, cultural and ideological into what appears to be universal, natural and purely empirical”.
Zalewski highlights the existence of a fissure in the very conception of what ‘theory’ is, and how it should be applied to the ‘real world’. This is between those who use theory as a tool and those who use it to critique, that is to say between reflective critical theorists and ‘problem-solving’ or ‘logical-positivist’ theorists. Theorists cannot claim to be value neutral or totally objective, there is ‘no view from nowhere’ and Smith rightfully claims there is no such thing as theory separate from power, one cannot theorise in a void. The very point of theory is to affect society; there exist no ‘ivory towers’.
Zalewski concludes that dominant theories reflect the interests of the already powerful; this mirrors Marx’s statement that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”.
The role of theory in political phenomenon can be seen as being part of an enclosed loop, that is to say that theory effects policy decision, which in turn effect the action of actors and thus determines political outcomes. However the political world, itself affected by countless outcomes, directly effects the formation of theory. Next we shall see how assuming a start point in this loop, and neglecting other factors, can affect political outcomes:
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union several western commentators claimed that the ‘West’ had triumphed due to liberal democracy and an aggressive foreign policy of intervention and containment. However, Dalby states that this idea severely misreads the global political situation, as Tony Benn famously stated in parliament the people of the ‘eastern bloc’ did not rise up because they craved a poll tax and a privatized water supply. Like the elderly comrades in ‘Good Bye Lenin’ Eastern Germans found themselves nostalgic for the planned economy: “The hopes of 1989 quickly began to fade as economic recession gripped the reunited state. There was a massive wave of factory closures and rocketing unemployment”; something that triumphant ‘western’ commentators neglect to acknowledge.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn2) The USSR can be seen to have fallen due to its own poor system, not due to the success of western systems. However to ‘western capitalist’ thinkers it was a product of the success and primacy of their own system, this view then blinds their discourse in regards to global issues in the post-cold war era.
One example of this false view is Fukuyama’s notion of ‘the end of history’. Chowdhry and Nair claim this to be a ‘facile notion’ that obscures the working of power (Zizek goes as far as to say that “it is easy to make fun of Fukuyama's notion” due to its massively subjective and myth based foundations and use of ‘autonomous ideas’). By proclaiming that liberal democracy is the ‘ultimate system’ and by assuming a linear notion of history[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn3) Fukuyama justifies several real political outcomes: Firstly it justifies economic and military intervention on a massive scale: The USA having reached the zenith of human civilization should ‘aid’ modernization of the globe and has an unassailable right to do so. All those who resist this ‘Westernisation’ are simply enemies of progress. This built upon a theoretical assumption of what the best system is, but it is also in the imperialist legacy of the Conquistadors, who similarly ‘benevolently’ led a mission to ‘help’ a ‘backwards’ people.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn4) “Imperial ideology has its spurious 'messianic' or 'missionary' element, but ultimately it strives toward the appearance of pragmatism, technical virtuosity, and 'common sense'” that is to say that it deceives the masses with the dual arguments (in context of the current war on terror) of spreading liberal democracy and securing safety from terrorism.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn5)
Secondly this theory perpetuates itself, as the theory has apparently been shown to succeed in the face of alternatives it must be correct, this leads to biased perceptions of things such as ‘danger’ and how to counter it. In the post Cold-War era large powers continue invest billions into military spending to counter almost non-existent external military threats, and yet neglect to commit to spending to mitigate the very real danger of climate change. In regards of how to counter danger, military force is seen as a, if not the, main way to combat terrorism; however, for example in regards to Yemen a fraction of the military funding could instead be spent countering poverty and the poor quality of life which gives rise to extremism (a relationship established not by ‘enemies to progress’ but by the World Bank[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn6)). When trying to ‘modernize’ nations the ‘west’ uses what Dalby calls it’s ‘sacrosanct institutions’ such as the IMF, the view that the system is correct leads to such things as the neglect of the negative effects of IMF loans: Such as the loans being found to cause increased cases of TB (when the loan ends the TB cases decrease again).[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn7)
The starting assumption of a theory can often become self-fulfilling, for example Realist thought makes assumptions of the struggle between nations or for Huntington of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’, this view directly biases policy which can lead to the predictions made in the theory coming to fruition, albeit only because of the policy enacted not because of some objective truth found in the theory.[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn8)
By approaching international politics from a ‘clash of civilizations’ perspective one also assumes ‘culture’ is little more than a social construct (where does one end and another start, and who draws the boundaries would be an important question), it also necessitates the view of ‘us’ and ‘them’ which obscures political events: An example of this would be American support for Israel who supposedly share a similar culture (and usually skin colour) in comparison to Palestinians who are often portrayed as Islamic extremists, ‘spoilers’ and as a danger to our very way of life.[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn9) This ‘clash of civilizations’ view of history neglects thousands of years of human history and even present day reality; Egypt (and Arab and Islamic nation) is closer to the USA and Israel in IR than it is to the displaced Palestinians, something highlighted by the recent Egyptian attempts to halt the Viva Palestina convoy and close the Gazan border.
Another example of how theory is used as a framework for results can be seen in US drug policy, both domestically and internationally. The complex and intermeshed group of phenomenon and policy decisions related to narcotics highlight the way that a theory can be manipulated to serve the needs of the powerful and to create ‘specific outcomes’ and how practice and theory are inseparable. Grayson notes how US narcotic policy has highlighted the decline in any demarcation between foreign and domestic policy, it has underlined how the framework policy provides is utilized to achieve specific political goals at a domestic and international level.[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn10)
The very legal status of narcotics is at the base of policy, the illegality of drugs is a subject of contention, drug offences are treated as criminal and not medical issues, yet more it has not been proved sufficiently by any objective testing that the total prohibition of drugs is the only viable system. Political commentators from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul have explained that marijuana is illegal in the USA simply due to the issues the government has in taxing the drug. Issues over domestic drug policy will be discussed later in this essay. Firstly we shall deal with the international role of the US ‘War on Drugs’.
The US theory that drugs must be ‘warred against’ has been used as a political tool time and again: Klepak explains that in the post-cold war era commitment to US drug policy has been ‘something of a touch stone for testing [the] loyalty of other countries’; Foucault wrote on how compliance with the ‘war on drugs’ was used by states as a way to ‘maximize their utilitly’ to the US through obedience. It can be asserted that this is a basis of the relationship with Columbia, again this shows how theory (a war on an inanimate object is little more than this) generates phenomenon.
As earlier mentioned, the ‘war on drugs’ was discounted as an objective ‘war’, this is not to say there is not conflicts, however drugs is not the driving force. This can also be said of the Bush doctrine’s application, the spread of democracy was not the aim of interventions, the King of Saud’s continued existence can assets to this. The Venezuela government has been implied as a target of the ‘war on drugs’ (something Venezuela denies), even if this is true the US are, what Zizek labels, ‘lying in the guise of truth’. That is to say implying their enemy as being something they wish to ‘war’ against as a pretext for actions they wish to enact regardless.[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn11) The ‘Narco-Terrorists’ of Columbia pose an example of how assumptions drawn into theory can be manipulated for the benefit of the powerful, left wing groups are often labelled narco-terrorists (rightfully or wrongfully) yet the reason they fight, and the US fight against them has less to do with drugs than one would expect. The assumption of the conflict being a war on drugs is used to obscure the fact that in Columbia exists a violent conflict between left and right wing groups. CIA trained ‘death squads’ have been used against narco-terrorists and trade union activists alike according to Amnesty International, it being in the interests of the US and its corporations (such as Coca-Cola) to halt the pink-tide damaging its business interests in Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere. We can see how the theory and policy remain the framework even if the ‘truth’ behind the political phenomenon is obscured.
The socio-political landscape of domestic drug policy is, as already seen (in its legal status) a contentious and complex subject. The underlying reason for illegalization of drugs, for it being a criminal and not a medical issue and for the often high sentences handed out for lesser drug ‘offences’ can be seen to be partly due to what has been termed the ‘prison industrial complex’ (by thinkers such as Goldberg and Evans et al).[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn12) Sudbury explains how oppressed minorities are pushed by material conditions into the ‘prisoner machine’ where there exists a “symbiotic and profitable relationship between politicians, corporations, the media and state correctional institutions that generates the racialized use of incarceration as a response to social problems rooted in the globalization of capital”.
This ‘prisoner for profit’ system typifies the relationship between what is seemingly common sense and low level ‘theory’ such as the illegalization of drugs and the war on drugs, and the motives and needs of the powerful in society.
In this essay we have displayed the way theory is used in international politics and highlighted the discrepancies between theory and motives. Using specific examples, of the post-cold war society and the ‘war on drugs’, we have seen how theory and practice are interrelated, and how one can be manipulated or interpreted to satisfy a ‘doctrinal gap’ created by the other. We have also commented on the role of theory in regards to power, which is a most important factor when accounting for how, and why, theories are used in international politics.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref1) Quoted from Dr Jim Thomas article in ‘Information Technology & People’: “Hidden Agendas, Power and Managerial Assumptions in information systems development: An ethnographic study”
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref2) Quoted from Gabi Engelhardt ‘Socialist Worker’ November 3 2009
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref3) A notion of history that doesn’t properly take into account the effect imperialist nations have on the rest of the globe one might add.
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref4) That is to say that most conquerors and hegemonic powers from the Roman to the British Empire have claimed benevolent intentions in spreading their own form of civilization through imperialist designs.
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref5) Quoted from Political Blog ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ May 15 2009
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref6) As in Mardy Shualy’s article ‘Educate Boys, or they’ll go to War’ published in ‘Foreign Policy’ of November 9 2009.
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref7) Information from a study by Cambridge University: published in ‘New Scientist’ 22 July 2008.
The cases of TB increase as the state makes drastic cuts in healthcare provision
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref8) It is prudent to note how aggressive foreign policy in the face of an assumed violent world can in fact lead to the world becoming increasing violent. For example increased terrorism in the face of Middle Eastern Interventions, or in the Kennedy assassination, something Malcolm said was simply the US’ ‘chickens coming home to roost’.
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref9) Spoilers refers to those that simply wish to ruin the modernization or peace process.
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref10) We do not wish to imply, by our choice of words (chiefly manipulate, and utilize) that a secret conspiracy or cartel is in action here. Only that the interests of the powerful in any society will dominate and will often be unconsciously assumed as one’s own ideas. For an unrelated example, when we say that Maoist 3 worlds theory was adopted simply to fill the doctrine gap created by China’s necessity to move closer to the United States we do not imply that there was a meeting in a dark back room to decide this, but that it was accepted as the material conditions made it rational to the leaders at that time.
[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref11) Again this can be highlighted with further examples such as: The USA claiming to be the protector of democracy and working to undermine governments such as that of Gaza, Chile or Venezuela; Or claiming to be against the former dictatorships of the eastern bloc while propping up ‘friendly’ dictators such as Pinochet, Suharto and Saddam Hussein.
[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref12) The harsh sentences are exemplified by Julia Sudbury who gives an account of a woman given a seven year sentence for having drugs, which her partner was importing, in a house she lived in regardless of her having any involvement: The reason for this being she would have benefitted from the profit of the activity.
In this essay we shall discuss and dissect the role of theory in international politics, using critical analysis to demonstrate how theories can, and have, been used to justify and instigate policy decisions. We shall also “open to scrutiny otherwise hidden agendas, power centres, and assumptions”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn1) found in existing theories; and explain the effects these have and for what motives they are used. Such myths are the assumptions and biases that are found throughout society, ranging from the idea of a benevolent hero (seen in children’s stories as studied by Jane Yolen) to concepts such as poverty being an unavoidable condition. Weber states “The Myths function in International Relations is the transformation of what is particular, cultural and ideological into what appears to be universal, natural and purely empirical”.
Zalewski highlights the existence of a fissure in the very conception of what ‘theory’ is, and how it should be applied to the ‘real world’. This is between those who use theory as a tool and those who use it to critique, that is to say between reflective critical theorists and ‘problem-solving’ or ‘logical-positivist’ theorists. Theorists cannot claim to be value neutral or totally objective, there is ‘no view from nowhere’ and Smith rightfully claims there is no such thing as theory separate from power, one cannot theorise in a void. The very point of theory is to affect society; there exist no ‘ivory towers’.
Zalewski concludes that dominant theories reflect the interests of the already powerful; this mirrors Marx’s statement that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”.
The role of theory in political phenomenon can be seen as being part of an enclosed loop, that is to say that theory effects policy decision, which in turn effect the action of actors and thus determines political outcomes. However the political world, itself affected by countless outcomes, directly effects the formation of theory. Next we shall see how assuming a start point in this loop, and neglecting other factors, can affect political outcomes:
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union several western commentators claimed that the ‘West’ had triumphed due to liberal democracy and an aggressive foreign policy of intervention and containment. However, Dalby states that this idea severely misreads the global political situation, as Tony Benn famously stated in parliament the people of the ‘eastern bloc’ did not rise up because they craved a poll tax and a privatized water supply. Like the elderly comrades in ‘Good Bye Lenin’ Eastern Germans found themselves nostalgic for the planned economy: “The hopes of 1989 quickly began to fade as economic recession gripped the reunited state. There was a massive wave of factory closures and rocketing unemployment”; something that triumphant ‘western’ commentators neglect to acknowledge.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn2) The USSR can be seen to have fallen due to its own poor system, not due to the success of western systems. However to ‘western capitalist’ thinkers it was a product of the success and primacy of their own system, this view then blinds their discourse in regards to global issues in the post-cold war era.
One example of this false view is Fukuyama’s notion of ‘the end of history’. Chowdhry and Nair claim this to be a ‘facile notion’ that obscures the working of power (Zizek goes as far as to say that “it is easy to make fun of Fukuyama's notion” due to its massively subjective and myth based foundations and use of ‘autonomous ideas’). By proclaiming that liberal democracy is the ‘ultimate system’ and by assuming a linear notion of history[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn3) Fukuyama justifies several real political outcomes: Firstly it justifies economic and military intervention on a massive scale: The USA having reached the zenith of human civilization should ‘aid’ modernization of the globe and has an unassailable right to do so. All those who resist this ‘Westernisation’ are simply enemies of progress. This built upon a theoretical assumption of what the best system is, but it is also in the imperialist legacy of the Conquistadors, who similarly ‘benevolently’ led a mission to ‘help’ a ‘backwards’ people.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn4) “Imperial ideology has its spurious 'messianic' or 'missionary' element, but ultimately it strives toward the appearance of pragmatism, technical virtuosity, and 'common sense'” that is to say that it deceives the masses with the dual arguments (in context of the current war on terror) of spreading liberal democracy and securing safety from terrorism.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn5)
Secondly this theory perpetuates itself, as the theory has apparently been shown to succeed in the face of alternatives it must be correct, this leads to biased perceptions of things such as ‘danger’ and how to counter it. In the post Cold-War era large powers continue invest billions into military spending to counter almost non-existent external military threats, and yet neglect to commit to spending to mitigate the very real danger of climate change. In regards of how to counter danger, military force is seen as a, if not the, main way to combat terrorism; however, for example in regards to Yemen a fraction of the military funding could instead be spent countering poverty and the poor quality of life which gives rise to extremism (a relationship established not by ‘enemies to progress’ but by the World Bank[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn6)). When trying to ‘modernize’ nations the ‘west’ uses what Dalby calls it’s ‘sacrosanct institutions’ such as the IMF, the view that the system is correct leads to such things as the neglect of the negative effects of IMF loans: Such as the loans being found to cause increased cases of TB (when the loan ends the TB cases decrease again).[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn7)
The starting assumption of a theory can often become self-fulfilling, for example Realist thought makes assumptions of the struggle between nations or for Huntington of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’, this view directly biases policy which can lead to the predictions made in the theory coming to fruition, albeit only because of the policy enacted not because of some objective truth found in the theory.[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn8)
By approaching international politics from a ‘clash of civilizations’ perspective one also assumes ‘culture’ is little more than a social construct (where does one end and another start, and who draws the boundaries would be an important question), it also necessitates the view of ‘us’ and ‘them’ which obscures political events: An example of this would be American support for Israel who supposedly share a similar culture (and usually skin colour) in comparison to Palestinians who are often portrayed as Islamic extremists, ‘spoilers’ and as a danger to our very way of life.[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn9) This ‘clash of civilizations’ view of history neglects thousands of years of human history and even present day reality; Egypt (and Arab and Islamic nation) is closer to the USA and Israel in IR than it is to the displaced Palestinians, something highlighted by the recent Egyptian attempts to halt the Viva Palestina convoy and close the Gazan border.
Another example of how theory is used as a framework for results can be seen in US drug policy, both domestically and internationally. The complex and intermeshed group of phenomenon and policy decisions related to narcotics highlight the way that a theory can be manipulated to serve the needs of the powerful and to create ‘specific outcomes’ and how practice and theory are inseparable. Grayson notes how US narcotic policy has highlighted the decline in any demarcation between foreign and domestic policy, it has underlined how the framework policy provides is utilized to achieve specific political goals at a domestic and international level.[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn10)
The very legal status of narcotics is at the base of policy, the illegality of drugs is a subject of contention, drug offences are treated as criminal and not medical issues, yet more it has not been proved sufficiently by any objective testing that the total prohibition of drugs is the only viable system. Political commentators from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul have explained that marijuana is illegal in the USA simply due to the issues the government has in taxing the drug. Issues over domestic drug policy will be discussed later in this essay. Firstly we shall deal with the international role of the US ‘War on Drugs’.
The US theory that drugs must be ‘warred against’ has been used as a political tool time and again: Klepak explains that in the post-cold war era commitment to US drug policy has been ‘something of a touch stone for testing [the] loyalty of other countries’; Foucault wrote on how compliance with the ‘war on drugs’ was used by states as a way to ‘maximize their utilitly’ to the US through obedience. It can be asserted that this is a basis of the relationship with Columbia, again this shows how theory (a war on an inanimate object is little more than this) generates phenomenon.
As earlier mentioned, the ‘war on drugs’ was discounted as an objective ‘war’, this is not to say there is not conflicts, however drugs is not the driving force. This can also be said of the Bush doctrine’s application, the spread of democracy was not the aim of interventions, the King of Saud’s continued existence can assets to this. The Venezuela government has been implied as a target of the ‘war on drugs’ (something Venezuela denies), even if this is true the US are, what Zizek labels, ‘lying in the guise of truth’. That is to say implying their enemy as being something they wish to ‘war’ against as a pretext for actions they wish to enact regardless.[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn11) The ‘Narco-Terrorists’ of Columbia pose an example of how assumptions drawn into theory can be manipulated for the benefit of the powerful, left wing groups are often labelled narco-terrorists (rightfully or wrongfully) yet the reason they fight, and the US fight against them has less to do with drugs than one would expect. The assumption of the conflict being a war on drugs is used to obscure the fact that in Columbia exists a violent conflict between left and right wing groups. CIA trained ‘death squads’ have been used against narco-terrorists and trade union activists alike according to Amnesty International, it being in the interests of the US and its corporations (such as Coca-Cola) to halt the pink-tide damaging its business interests in Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere. We can see how the theory and policy remain the framework even if the ‘truth’ behind the political phenomenon is obscured.
The socio-political landscape of domestic drug policy is, as already seen (in its legal status) a contentious and complex subject. The underlying reason for illegalization of drugs, for it being a criminal and not a medical issue and for the often high sentences handed out for lesser drug ‘offences’ can be seen to be partly due to what has been termed the ‘prison industrial complex’ (by thinkers such as Goldberg and Evans et al).[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn12) Sudbury explains how oppressed minorities are pushed by material conditions into the ‘prisoner machine’ where there exists a “symbiotic and profitable relationship between politicians, corporations, the media and state correctional institutions that generates the racialized use of incarceration as a response to social problems rooted in the globalization of capital”.
This ‘prisoner for profit’ system typifies the relationship between what is seemingly common sense and low level ‘theory’ such as the illegalization of drugs and the war on drugs, and the motives and needs of the powerful in society.
In this essay we have displayed the way theory is used in international politics and highlighted the discrepancies between theory and motives. Using specific examples, of the post-cold war society and the ‘war on drugs’, we have seen how theory and practice are interrelated, and how one can be manipulated or interpreted to satisfy a ‘doctrinal gap’ created by the other. We have also commented on the role of theory in regards to power, which is a most important factor when accounting for how, and why, theories are used in international politics.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref1) Quoted from Dr Jim Thomas article in ‘Information Technology & People’: “Hidden Agendas, Power and Managerial Assumptions in information systems development: An ethnographic study”
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref2) Quoted from Gabi Engelhardt ‘Socialist Worker’ November 3 2009
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref3) A notion of history that doesn’t properly take into account the effect imperialist nations have on the rest of the globe one might add.
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref4) That is to say that most conquerors and hegemonic powers from the Roman to the British Empire have claimed benevolent intentions in spreading their own form of civilization through imperialist designs.
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref5) Quoted from Political Blog ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ May 15 2009
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref6) As in Mardy Shualy’s article ‘Educate Boys, or they’ll go to War’ published in ‘Foreign Policy’ of November 9 2009.
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref7) Information from a study by Cambridge University: published in ‘New Scientist’ 22 July 2008.
The cases of TB increase as the state makes drastic cuts in healthcare provision
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref8) It is prudent to note how aggressive foreign policy in the face of an assumed violent world can in fact lead to the world becoming increasing violent. For example increased terrorism in the face of Middle Eastern Interventions, or in the Kennedy assassination, something Malcolm said was simply the US’ ‘chickens coming home to roost’.
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref9) Spoilers refers to those that simply wish to ruin the modernization or peace process.
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref10) We do not wish to imply, by our choice of words (chiefly manipulate, and utilize) that a secret conspiracy or cartel is in action here. Only that the interests of the powerful in any society will dominate and will often be unconsciously assumed as one’s own ideas. For an unrelated example, when we say that Maoist 3 worlds theory was adopted simply to fill the doctrine gap created by China’s necessity to move closer to the United States we do not imply that there was a meeting in a dark back room to decide this, but that it was accepted as the material conditions made it rational to the leaders at that time.
[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref11) Again this can be highlighted with further examples such as: The USA claiming to be the protector of democracy and working to undermine governments such as that of Gaza, Chile or Venezuela; Or claiming to be against the former dictatorships of the eastern bloc while propping up ‘friendly’ dictators such as Pinochet, Suharto and Saddam Hussein.
[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref12) The harsh sentences are exemplified by Julia Sudbury who gives an account of a woman given a seven year sentence for having drugs, which her partner was importing, in a house she lived in regardless of her having any involvement: The reason for this being she would have benefitted from the profit of the activity.