Paradigms of Social Justice and Obligation

VII. Extra-territorial lawlessness ("end" justifies means)

    American foreign policy is an extension of the public good process. Foreign aid is mostly a circuitous subsidy to American exporters, especially the defense contractors and multinational corporations; coincidentally, foreign aid is also the least accountable of government expenditures. Even a first exposure to the alternate media [see Kwitney, Karp, Zinn, Parenti, Chomsky] will convey a realization that American foreign policy is not accurately portrayed in the mass media. The "rationalized" business environment which the US manufactures in foreign countries is the antithesis of national security or democracy. Not quite honorable either, the US secret government has historically sought to destabilize the third world [Stockwell]. This makes great markets for US defense contractors - and very heavy handed influence in their politics - but hardly seems very defensible otherwise. Our loss of economic preeminence exacerbates the trend to seek non-consensual relationships out of desperation.

    An imperialistic trend is to deny civil rights to foreigners even while applying American laws to them extra-territorially! [the RICO act & Noriego, for example] This American century has seen an increasingly belligerent, might-makes-right attitude, creating many sought-after enemies. [Karp 1979, Stockwell] The parade of pitiful excuses offered by our leaders shows that most Americans just don't care what happens outside the US - any excuse is acceptable. While the innocent, but foreign, poor are oppressed, tortured, and murdered with the help of the American tax dollar, it is enough to conjure up American Virtue: "We do this for Democracy and Freedom." Pumped up with nationalistic pride, the American smugly presumes his country's gracious benevolence, not daring to look behind the lies. Useful for the "world's policeman" is the seductive idea, "benevolent coercion", which translates to "some individuals know better other individual's interests than the others do themselves".

    If ends now justify means, why bother with values and beliefs? Clearly, morality does not interfere with an imperialist program to bring Democracy, or religion, to the world. The same accusation, of misplaced ends, seems to apply now more frequently and broadly than ever. Of course, the "end" is usually contrived; it need only sound good. How can the alleged goal contradict the behavior directed toward it? How can we promote democracy with such horrendously un-democratic means? As if the reasons and beliefs were inconsequential, the "ulterior motives" are concealed from observer and subject alike.