Jul 23, 2010
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus
John Feffer
John Feffer is the author of the dystopian novel "Splinterlands" (2016) and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. His novel, "Frostlands" (2018) is book two of his Splinterlands trilogy. Splinterlands book three "Songlands" was published in 2021. His podcast is available here.
belarusbig pharmachinacluster bombscubaegyptethiopiageorge w. bushhenry kissingeriraqneoconnorth koreapaul wolfowitzsaddam husseinsudanugandaworld bank
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
John Feffer
John Feffer is the author of the dystopian novel "Splinterlands" (2016) and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. His novel, "Frostlands" (2018) is book two of his Splinterlands trilogy. Splinterlands book three "Songlands" was published in 2021. His podcast is available here.
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
Who would have thought that the evil team bent on destroying the
world would be composed entirely of people of color? In the imagination
of Hollywood, after all, the bad guys are now white guys like the
scientists gone bad in Spiderman or those jokers in Batman or the military privateers of Avatar.
Occasionally, scriptwriters will dust off a rogue Russian or sprinkle a
few Arab terrorists in the mix or persuade Forest Whitaker to play Idi
Amin. But for the most part, post-Arendt, we now associate evil with
banality, and there is nothing more banal than plain vanilla.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
So what do we make of the cover of Foreign Policy magazine's
latest issue? Designed like a film poster, the title reads: The
Committee to Destroy the World. The five stars line up below this
provocative description, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as the
headliner. Behind him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Yoweri Museveni
of Uganda, Than Shwe of Burma, and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Inside the
issue, only one white guy merits inclusion in what the editors call a
list of "bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." But the bad boy
of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, doesn't make it onto the front cover.
Foreign Policy dresses up its annual Failed States Index
as a brave exercise in truth-telling. "We take the opportunity to cast
some blame, point some fingers, and name some names," editor Susan
Glasser writes. "And unfortunately, there are many Bad Guys to go
around, from cynical dictators to greedy multinational corporations to
opportunistic world powers." I eagerly thumb through the issue to see
about these corporations and world powers.
But all I find is the United Nations, pirates, and China. Oh,
there's Paul Wolfowitz. But instead of being on the cover along with
Kim Jong Il, Wolfowitz is an author! And, embarrassment of
embarrassments, he's the only one to name corporations ExxonMobil and
Devon Energy, for being unforthcoming about their revenues. And,
really, he only points half a finger: "Perhaps these companies have
nothing to hide." Hey Paul, how about a little self-criticism about
Iraq and the failed states you helped along the way with World Bank
loans? But no, just a plea for transparency, as if Wolfowitz were Mr.
Full Disclosure when he served in top posts.
The other targets are pretty conventional. Mo Ibrahim complains
about corruption, Bruce Babbitt rails against resource extractors, and
Raymond Offenheiser complains about paramilitaries. Boubacar Boris Diop
pillories the French (but hey, it's easy to dump on the French). And
Robert Kaplan, who specializes in transforming cliches into inanities
(or is it the other way around?), identifies geography as a factor in
failed states.
As for the rest, it's all what Foreign Policy calls "general coconut heads," which suggests that tropical states have a special affinity for dictators and Foreign Policy
writers a special weakness for racist slurs (or maybe I'm reading too
much into the reference to a brown-skinned "nut"). States have failed
because of bad guys and the bad countries (China) and institutions (UN)
that coddle them. During the Cold War, we supposedly needed some of
these thugs on our side, and occasionally we still do (like Meles
Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose 2006 invasion of Somalia we supported or
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whom we supply with millions of dollars in arms
every year). But today, Foreign Policy implies, we should
keep our white gloves clean and have nothing to do with these despots.
Or, if we do associate with them, for god's sake don't mention the
connections in polite company!
So, in all of this courageous finger-pointing, why don't our foreign
policy mandarins look a little closer to home? Afghanistan is No. 6 on
the list of failed states, but you can't tell from the index that the
United States rained destruction on the country and devoted precious
little to repairing the damage. NATO forces, according to the
annotation, are "trying to direct Afghanistan's future." That sounds
pretty benign - imagine Raul Castro simply "directing Cuba's future"
like he's about to put out a Hollywood feature.
Iraq, meanwhile, is No. 7, and there's no mention of how the United
States pulled the dagger of Saddam Hussein out of the injured country
and then watched it bleed to death. Hundreds of thousands of refugees
have poured out of Iraq and don't look likely to return anytime soon.
In a terrible irony for the evangelical-minded Bush administration,
many of these refugees are Iraqi Christians who fled after the invasion and the subsequent upsurge in sectarian strife.
Yes, China does its fair share of propping up dictatorships. Its leaders obviously learned their realpolitik from
masters like Henry Kissinger, who welcomed the country into the
international community in 1972 when Mao had added senility to his
despotism and China was veering perilously close to failed-state status
as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Sometimes the ends of resource
extraction and balance-of-power politics, as the Harvard professor cum secretary of state cum war criminal taught, justifies pretty much any means, and China has expertly internalized this lesson.
But why no articles in this boldly provocative Foreign Policy
issue on U.S. arms exports, for which we earn the dubious honor of
being No. 1 in the world? Or perhaps Washington is simply selling these
arms to countries that benignly dump them into the ocean to build up
coral reefs? Or on how U.S. efforts to undermine international treaties
- the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Seas, the treaty on
cluster munitions - are just a way to keep the black helicopters at bay
and prevent a world government run by the Antichrist. And let's not
even go into the fertile territory of corporate crime - Blackwater/Xe,
BP, Big Pharma, and so on. After all, that might offend advertisers
like Shell, which has a full-page spread in this summer issue.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't replace the five emissaries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Foreign Policy
cover with a quintet of white guys in suits. Multiculturalism has
prospered nowhere more than in the corporate world, the upper reaches
of government, and the military. Ron Brown was the key figure behind
the surge in arms exports during the Clinton administration;
Condoleezza Rice has a lot to answer for in terms of her tenure in the
Bush administration. Corporate hacks and militarists come in all
flavors and colors.
Let me be double clear: The badfellas in this Foreign Policy
issue are no saints. They are all eminently indictable (along with
Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz). But the cartoonish quality of the
magazine's coverage, adopted no doubt to appeal to the younger and the
hipper, suggests that foreign policy is black and white. Looking at the
negative of this picture - the United States is behind all evil in the
world - is just as misleading. Perhaps the only people in the world who
truly believe in U.S. omnipotence are conspiracy theorists on the left
(it's one of the reasons they make the transition to far-right
politics so seamlessly). The reality is a whole lot grayer. For
instance, Kissinger is a war criminal, but the detente with China has ultimately benefited both countries.
Some conservatives like to dismiss the critiques of the American
left by saying that we only see U.S. fingerprints on the murder
weapons. Sure, we have our blind spots, too. We should be more
evenhanded in our critiques of the abuses of those leaders who claim
some leftist lineage (the Castros, Hu Jintao). But as Americans we have
a special responsibility to challenge the policies of our country,
because that's what self-government is about. Rather than focus on the
remote (the leaders of distant lands), we focus on the mote (in our own
American eyes). Our foreign policy - and Foreign Policy - could perhaps benefit from a little more honest introspection.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.