Double Standards in Recent American Foreign Policy

Özet

A number of vvriters consider anarchy as the fundamental fact of international relations.1 Linked to the Hobbesian analogy, they see it as a chaotic arena of "war of ali against ali." The inference is that authority and order are lacking. Described as "political realism," this approach claims to analyze a number of social concepts such as human nature, interest, power and character of international affairs and exhibits a tendency to treat lack of democracy in relations betvveen nations and even aggressive foreign policy as the inevitable products of reaiity, vvhether one likes it or not. It is deduced, then, that vvithin this context, the history of international relations is, in fact, a struggle for domination. This pursuit, vvhich may look to some commentators as a curtailment, raises the doctrine to the status of a "universal truth." The bases of this interpretation are so vvidely described that they encompass, at times, theories of morality or social and economic doctrines. For instance, vvhile an undemocratic leader of a client country may be portrayed as a statesman responsible to his people, another one, equally undemocratic or even duly elected by his citizens and responsive to their needs, may be presented in negative images. Similarly, laissez-faire between capital and labour in the domestic sphere and market economy in the international realm are the paradise of the economically strong.