Bad bedfellows

By Deauwand Myers

The more powerful a country, the more complicated (and problematic) its foreign policy usually is. My native country of the United States of America has a lot of explaining to do in this regard.

The list of downright sinister foreign policy blunders committed by the United States and/or its Anglo-European allies is too many to enumerate here, but an abbreviated list is useful, insofar as locating the inherent hypocrisies and contradictions plaguing current geopolitical affairs.

In the so-called Banana Wars, America, in service to American fruit companies, used a variety of tactics to subvert democratic movements, subsequently installing anti-democratic regimes, as to better exploit the natural resources of these countries. In short, America helped usher in decades of political unrest, mass murder, and human misery for profit.

During the Guatemalan Revolution (1944-51), democratic elections ushered in popular, leftist governments (these administrations sought a broader distribution of the country's wealth and resources to the masses), but a coup d'etat (sponsored by the U.S.) in 1954 installed the military regime of Carlos Castillo Armas. Disastrously, successive governments thereafter were conservative, military dictatorships.

Drug cartels, mass crime, violence, and poverty now plague much of Central America, which means these caravans of immigrants seeking political asylum in the United States are doing so in no small part due to the aforementioned dastardly deeds committed by the United States. Some South American countries experienced similar treatment from America.

The current political state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iran is directly due to the United States' backing regime change, installing brutal dictatorships (in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) or authoritarian theocracies (Iran).

Operation Ajax, a program instituted by the CIA at the behest of Britain, as to better exploit Iran's petroleum wealth, is quite a read, and a damning example of how the West, which says it's for democracy, freedom, and human rights, has spread the exact opposite in many parts of the world.

The recent abduction, torture and murder of journalist and darling-turned-political dissident, Jamal Khashoggi, of the Saudi regime (a monarchical theocracy) further highlights the contradictions and hypocrisy of America's foreign policy. For over four generations, the United States has been a strong ally of Saudi Arabia; first because of oil, and now, to help counterbalance Iran.

Yet, what we now call extremist Islamic ideology (Wahhabism) and the terrorism inspired by it comes from its overt funding and sponsorship via Saudi oil wealth. This Faustian bargain is twofold: the Saudi regime retains its royal legitimacy by supporting this particular brand of Islam, while this particular brand of Islam is allowed free reign throughout the kingdom and abroad.

The 9/11 attack on the U.S. was sponsored and perpetrated by mostly Saudi citizens, who indirectly were themselves sponsored by the oil wealth of the Saudi regime, itself rich off of the political, military and diplomatic support of America and the West.

And so, we say religious fundamentalism and state religion are wrong, yet we support governments with said systems. America asserts that Venezuela, Russia and Iran are evil and anti-democratic, but Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are perfectly fine, because we get along with each other. It's ridiculous.

The recent rapprochement between North and South Korea elucidates the aforementioned complexities. President Moon Jae-in's enthusiasm in reaching a peaceful resolution with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is admirable. The problem is with the DPRK's past reneging on denuclearization. How many times has South Korea, even after making concessions and enduring violence and death, been lied to by the North?

Let's be honest. Korea has always been the victim of the North's aggression. The sinking of the Cheonan and the bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island are recent examples. These unprovoked attacks were just part of a litany of murderous transgressions perpetrated by the North.

Let's say the North does suspend its nuclear weapons program, and relations between the two Koreas are normalized. What then? I ask that which I have asked before: Is such a scenario, where the international community tolerates the DPRK's existence and the egregious human rights violations routinely taking place there are ignored, a tenable state of affairs?

Myanmar, China, Russia and a fairly long list of other countries are accepted into the international community with little regard to the transgressions these countries commit against their own citizenry (and other nations these countries view as adversarial).

The moral hypocrisy of this is apparent. We, I mean developed democracies the world over, may need to seriously re-evaluate the ways we interact with so-called rogue regimes. If we value peace more than human suffering on an epidemic scale, fine, let's admit that.

But feigning concern for the well-being of others unfortunate enough to live in these countries, all the while being chummy with the offending regimes, isn't a profile of courage. They are bad bedfellows.

Deauwand Myers (deauwand@hotmail.com) holds a master's degree in English literature and literary theory, and is an English professor outside Seoul.