A reversal of the traditional left/right divide on international affairs

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Wednesday March 17, 2004 19:00 by Eoin O' Cearbhaill

This piece seeks to analyse the reasons why the left have oppossed the attempts by many on the right to create a world on a democratic basis, while the left has adopted a position largely in support of sovereignity and the 'he may be a bastard, but he is our bastard mentaility'

There quite an interesting reversal going on in geo-politics, between those of a left/socialist persuasion and those of a right wing persuasion.

Generally, if there was hated dictator killing person by the thousand, the left would be demanding revolution and his immediate overthrow. they would generally support foreign powers supporting his overthrow as well. Examples of this can be seen in Angola, whereby the left supported the intervention of Cuban forces, as well in the Congo and the overthrow of Tshombe's separatist Katangan government. Plenty of other examples can be found throughout the world as well.

In comparison, the right, presumably because they were of a more realist bent, were inclined to do deal with dictators and strong men, the 'he may be a bastard, but he is our bastard' mentality.

However, in the past four years that mentality has reversed entirely.

Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but people on the left complain (as can be seen throughout indymedia and beyond) of the break down in law and order, and seem to suggest that because Saddam did a good line in repressing fanatics, he should have been left in power, as a bulwark against Islamic terror.

Similarly there is a huge toleration of the corruption of Arafat and his Fatah movement on the grounds that well, he's 'our (the lefts) bastard'.

Other examples can be seen in Chavez, in Cuba, Iran and most recently Equatorial Guinea. The attitude of the left is increasingly reactionary, and is dependent on the ideology of if Bush's America opposes a ruler, well then, he cannot be too bad.

In comparison, the right are becoming increasingly ideological and pro-democracy through the influence of the neo-conservatives.

A quick read of American journals publishing the works of theses thinkers, highlight their willingness to overthrow anti-democratic governments anywhere and to install democratic regimes. No longer is there support for the Kissinger style realism, but the ideological fervour of the neo-cons political birth.

Most neo-cons were once of the left, however the increasingly reactionary nature of the left, particularly in the USA pushed them to the right where they are today.

However, unlike many of the original ideological kin, they have continued to be highly ideological, something that can be seen in their desire to overthrow the regimes is Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Saudi Arabia and so on and replace them with democratic regimes.

Of course, elements within the Bush regimes, most notably the Baker wing, still play Kissinger's games, but those around Wolfowitz quite clearly must be considered the most pro-democatic people in the world, unwillingly under any circumstances to tolerate, the 'our bastard' scenario.

The best example of this being, of course, the collapse of the Saudi-US relationship