In my previous post, I wrote of how after the Second World War, Anglo-American jurisprudence was influenced by German philosophy. Yet this was not the only influence of the Second World War upon the Anglophone region. The Second World War also profoundly influenced Anglo-American notions of the legitimacy of Military Expansionism. Since the involvement of Thomas Hobbes in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, an ideal has been held up in Western culture of non-intervention in the troubles of foreign states and principalities. The interpretation of this ideal had, until 1939, for the most part regarded European states as entitled to the fulfilment of the treaty’s promise of non-intervention, while considering non-European states as beyond the ambit of the treaty. This provided a veil of respectability, maintained by the notion of European cultural and civilisational superiority. The apparent respectability this double-standard provided to the British Empire was destroyed beyond repair by the Second World War, which put on show for all to see how the culture of the most civilised European nation can be used to serve brutality and destructive evil. The truth is the the Anglo-American region has been following the wave begun by the mistakes of the Nazi empire and it remains unable to pull out of that wave. It will continue to remain on that wave until we become able as a culture to repudiate the notion that European culture and civilisation is inherently superior. Every country in the Anglophone has as part of its DNA a necessity to vindicate European culture. Yet how is such a thing possible in the face of the crimes of the Nazis, and moreover, in the face of Anglo-American military aggression since 1945? In a way, the Germans were lucky in that they at least had the opportunity to recognise the deceit they had been under for what it was – will our culture receive a similar blessing?
Part of the movement toward such a cultural realisation must include soul searching regarding the role of the Anglo-American region in dictating United Nations policy. I would propose that rather than the UN being a international instrument to legitimise Anglo-American foreign policy – which is frankly how the UN is perceived in the Anglophone – that the UN should not only have procedural independence but ideological independence as well. The UN should be able to censure Anglophone countries, including the US, and indict political leaders from these countries. This Anglo-American dominance at the UN is the elephant in the room that undermines the influence and authority of the Anglo-American region internationally. It is no wonder that international leaders often treat the UN with contempt given the bias present in the UN towards favouring and promoting Anglo-American cultural values.
A further element to world politics that will make it clear that the foreign policies of the US, UK and similar countries have earned their metal is when they use their influence at the UN to prioritise nation building efforts over Peace Keeping efforts in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Such a change in policy would demonstrate the long-term interest that the Anglophone region has in underdeveloped nations’ success and prosperity. This should be conducted with the input of the people of the receiving nations to ensure that the best standards of accountability are demonstrated for all to see.
There are many problems in world politics, but getting the big things right should be the first priority and that effort begins with Anglo-American self-aggrandising self-promotion. With some self-knowledge and insight, the Anglo-American region may well be able to right at least some of the wrongs of the last 77 years and start to be a genuine force for good. Regional stability is a priority that supersedes claims to civilisational superiority. There was a time when the Anglo-American region believed in the power of ‘Big Men’ to solve the world’s problems. The problem with big men is that they often have big heads – which leaves them fundamentally lacking in tact and personal discipline. A culture only needs a Big Man to lead them when it is afraid to support what they think will happen in their names. When the culture is more confident of its humility and good will, only then can it receive the honour of having a vulnerable man or woman as its leader, because that culture knows that it will not be betrayed.
Tjpob's Blog 