The Invisible Threat of Global Hegemony - the Politics of Fear by Vera ButlerINTRODUCTION

In the wake of two world wars in the 20^th century the international community of nations founded the United Nations Organisation in 1945 to establish a forum for the peaceful resolution of political conflicts, without fear or favour.

Freedom from fear was stipulated in the Churchill-Roosevelt Declaration, known as the Atlantic Charter, of August 14, 1941, and was re-stated in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Freedom from fear was held to be the precondition for lasting peace. Yet the post-war experience of incessant military conflicts makes a world free of threats and fears seem Utopian.

At the beginning of the 21^st century the much-heralded New World Order, dominated by the United States of America and its ideology of economic liberalism, continues to pursue policies of confrontation against nations which do not accept its hegemonistic stance. They are labelled 'rogues', 'recalcitrants', or whatever flattering epithets are invented by the public relations 'whizz-kids' in Washington.

The collapse of the post-war balance of power, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, has made non-alignment or opposition to hegemonism politically problematic. The Russian Federation, now a major world oil-and natural gas seller, is gradually emerging from the ravages of its economy by 'free market' buccaneers. The violent break-up of the Yugoslav Federation, a multi-ethnic country, is enforced by NATO's continued presence. The Middle East is now one of the most destabilised regions of the world. The Indian sub-continent counts two nuclear powers, and political instability risks access to Pakistan's nuclear potential by Islamic fundamentalists. Indonesia, weakened by reckless speculation against its currency, the rupiah, and corruption - has to contend with separatism anode economic downturn. In East Asia, China remains an obstacle to an integrated New World Order. The most populous nation of the world, committed to a 'socialist market economy', is accused of human rights transgressions, espionage, and expansionism. Fears and abhorrence are generated among the international community.

The techniques and tactics of 'psychological warfare' were applied, with varying success, against Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq ... What causes growing unease is the command by Western interests of a global network of technologies . Its invisible controllers have the aim of winning public opinion. The ideology of economic liberalism and its culture is advertised globally; culture' is advertised globally, and invades every home . There is growing awareness of consciousness manipulation and hegemonism. Moreover, the worsening economic situation belies repetitive assertions that 'the market' leads to development. Hence nations like Venezuela or Cuba or Bolivia, are trying to assert national interest.

The question is : how long will they get away with it. The US might enforce compliance,and will they fall victim like Allende's Chile in 1972 ?

FEAR AND THE STRATEGY OF 'DETERRENCE

Fear as a warning signal of impending danger is a mechanism that is shared by humans as well as other creatures and is profoundly ingrained in the human psyche .

During the Cold War decades the strategy of deterrence used fear of nuclear retaliation to prevent aggression

Ever since the last war both East and West were frightened of each other and feverishly piled up weapons both nuclear and conventional .... now they are seized with the terror of parting with their terrors^.1

The threat of coercion - be it military, economic, or political is used to generate fear and uncertainty, even if a threat is only a diplomatic technique for manoeuvering an opponent to an advantageous mind-set. Referring to this psychology Kissinger argued that "a gesture intended as bluff is more useful as a deterrent than a bona fide threat²

However, the calculus of fear may not necessarily intimidate and restrain a would-be aggressor prepared to pay a high price for victory, as two world wars last century attest.

Threats are perceived through the filter of personal experiences, beliefs, historical memories, all of which may not be intelligible to the outsider and, therefore, complicate the task of anticipating (or predicting) responses. As John Erickson ³pointed out in his analysis of Soviet views of deterrence, "Russians did not necessarily think like Americans." The same applies to other nations as well.

Cold War analysts have drawn attention to the 'defence paradox', or the contradiction between the use of military means and the objective of security . In the nuclear age such a strategy is self-defeating. However, even conventional air power can be a formidable means of coercion if the "strategy" is bombing a smaller nation "back to the stone age", as some of the military Neanderthals involved in the 1991 Gulf War put it. Similar strategic thinking was directed against Yugoslavia, eight years later, when NATO commander General Wesley Clark vowed :- "We are going to systematically and progressively attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate " Yugoslav forces "until the objectives are achieved"⁴. The world is told that the objective is the removal of a recalcitrant leadersuch as Saddam Hussein or, Slobodan Milosevic, not the people, regardless of civilian casualties., Therefore, unless a supra-national authority such as the United Nations Organisation is empowered by the community of nations to close the 'arms bazaar' and to internationalise the means of mass destruction, their misuse will continue into the third millenium, with unforeseeable consequences.

THE 'SPIRAL EFFECT' OF THREATS AND FEARS.

Threats and fears led to a spiralling escalation of the arms race during the Cold War years, without enhancing the security of either the Soviet Union or the United States of America. The imagery of a powerful and threatening foe was promoted for public consumption, because fears were calculated to engender support for a policy of confrontation and escalating military expenditure - prompting the adversary to draw even, or one better.

Reciprocal threats generate a vicious "spiral effect" of misunderstandings and fears. Are perceptual errors at the core of political conflict as argued by Robert Jervis in Perceptions and Misperceptions

FEAR OF 'OTHERNESS' AND ETHNO-CHAUVINISM: THE 'ENEMY IMAGE'.

In his study of Political Passions Professor Alan Davies of the University of Melbourne drew attention to the manipulation of fear for political purposes. Symbol manipulations, and demonisations of adversaries, are long-standing techniques of 'psychological warfare', intended to generate fears of 'otherness'. During the Cold War decades such epithets as 'capitalist imperialism' or 'communist totalitarianism', or President Reagan's notorious description of the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire', demonised the adversary in the minds of uncritical citizens. In the words of John E Mack MD, member of a group of concerned scientists who opposed nuclear war:

Ideologies of enmity, which seem to flow like a kind of collective toxin through the bloodstream of a political culture, are the supreme instruments through which a political leader sustains his people's hostile attitudes toward another nation without which a unified war or defence effort is not possible.

Mack's studies of prejudice and enmity, including political stereotyping, have yielded a framework of psychosocial features implicit in the promotion of the 'enemy image'. They include the demonisation of the adversary, his dehumanisation, or the perception of other people and its leaders as faceless and brutish subhumans who deserve the harshest punishment by heroic Rambos or Supermen. The 'enemy image' offers simple solutions to complex problems. Mack stressed the perverse effects of fear manipulation on individuals and entire societies:

In their extreme or rigidified forms, ideologies of enmity. . . represent degraded forms of a nation's genuine vision and the authentic promise it holds for its citizens and the world. Totalistic belief systems appeal to the most destructive, exclusivist aspects of the mind. They can only thrive on lies and ignorance and upon intolerance of contradictory information or unwelcome facts, of complexity and diversity of human qualities and viewpoints, and of ambiguity and paradox.

A common feature of exclusivist ideologies or belief systems is fear of deviation or dissent, and punitive responses. Absolute power of the kind wielded by the inquisitor, the commissar, or even the less physically menacing techniques of innuendo, smears, and denunciations which destroyed reputations and careers during America's McCarthy era of the 1950s, are examples of coercive techniques at the disposal of 'captains of conscience'.

Fear of 'otherness' provokes violent responses, whenever group identity, and/or group interests, are perceived to be under threat. The origins of such animosities and mistrust reach back to tribal history. Yet experiences of 'ethnic cleansing¹ and racist murders in Europe, America, Asia, Africa, or in the Amazon forests of Brazil, suggest that ethno-chauvinism becomes more virulent as economic conditions worsen. It is a sign that the concept of citizenship has not taken root. In a truly civil society citizenship rights and obligations are the criterion for belonging, - not ethnicity, race, gender, or belief systems.

Why the sudden outbreak of hatreds, of fears, where people and social groups coexisted in the past ? With the exception of Japan there are few, if any, nations of the world which are ethnically and culturally homogenous. Thus most societies are vulnerable to internal conflicts. This makes it possible for outside interests to stir strife for their own ulterior purposes. The Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq, or the split of the Palestinians between Hamas and Fatah, are examples. Invariably, outside support is thrown behind one of the contending groups or political factions including advice, finance, arms, and training to achieve social destabilisation and then claim grounds for intervention. Thus the political naivety of the perpetrators and supporters of group-internal conflicts is exploited to turn them and their people into puppets in a much greater game for power and influence, or command over territories and resources.

THE VALUE CONTEST AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEBATE.

Fears of 'otherness' pervade the ongoing international controversy over human rights. The contest of values arouses fears of a new and subtle form of domination :- cultural hegemonism.

The United Nations- sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was subsequently supplemented by two International Covenants, one dealing with economic, social, and cultural rights (ICESCR) the other with civil and political rights (ICCPR). However, these international instruments became highly divisive tools for political point-scoring. Efforts to promote acceptance by means of political pressures and economic sanctions have widened the gulf of mistrust and fears of cultural and ideological hegemonism. It is noted that China became a signatory to the ICESCR in 1997, and to the ICCPR in 1998.

The concept of individual rights evolved from the Western humanistic tradition and is not easily transferable to other cultures. The concept is essentially 'meta-ideological', to use Martin Seliger's terminology. As such it is an ethical principle which has turned programmatic and proselytising. However, the misuse of a social philosophy for political purposes diminishes its persuasiveness and credibility. The observance of human rights cannot be imposed, but requires a learning-and maturation process involving entire polities, not just leaders or educated elites. George Kennan, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, pointed out in his critique of the Western human rights campaign, that

Democracy is a matter of tradition, of custom, of what people are used to, of what they understand and respect, it is not something that can be suddenly grafted onto an unprepared people, particularly not from the outside, and particularly not by precept, preaching and pressure, rather than example. ⁸

Non-Western societies do not easily accommodate Western interpretations of human rights, and vice versa.

The conflict between the Western belief in the rights of the individual, and the traditional sense of community which prevails in numerous other societies, is the subject-matter of current debate, but also conflicts, in many parts of the world, including Asia. There is mounting unease about the inroads of the 'business, culture' of capitalism, which tends to be summarily equated with Western culture as such. As an Indonesian official, Mr Machmud Subarkah, has pointed out, "What makes the Indonesian concept different from the Universal Declaration of Rights is that it is formulated on the assumption that although all human beings are born free, they live as social beings in a community. "

The comment highlights the Western influence on the United Nations Declaration, whereby its claimed 'universality' is diminished.

Urbanised Western societies have largely lost links to the extended family, or the sense of community which was the norm in a rural life-style of old. A similar process is under way in the newly industrialising parts of the world. Traditional social values and ethical norms are strained (and sometimes jettisoned) under changing conditions - which suggests that they are neither permanent nor 'universal' any more than are Western values. The question, then, is not whether one value-system is superior to another, but which one reflects more closely individual aspirations and social conditions. In times of transition both old and new coexist for some time, and this gradual process of learning and interchange must be given time to mature.

THE TECHNOLOGICAL THREAT : TOWARDS A NEW TOTALITARIANISM?

Globalisation and world government have long figured in futuristic projections, including social Utopias. The United Nations Organisation (UNO) embodied the hopes of a war-weary generation for a supra-national arbiter of conflicts. Under conditions of progressive globalisation of international relations, and the spread of comunication technologies, the UNO was an ideal forum for the nations of the world to jointly map a future without fears of big power hegemonism.

No absolutist ruler or totalitarian dictator has wielded comparable power, or could exercise the extent of control, that has become possible with the advances of science and technology. The intrusiveness of the electronic media justifies apprehensions that civil and political rights are under challenge at national and international levels - those very rights that are protected by the United Nations Covenant (ICCPR) !

The global coverage and intrusiveness of electronic media have created an unprecedented threat to the right of individuals and entire societies to autonomy and privacy. The 'global market-place' stereotypes consumers to 'designer' images in looks, habits, and wants. In the 'brave new world' of the globalised 'business culture' brute force is replaced by civilised and persuasive argument, setting new standards of 'good' and 'bad', whilst dismissing questions about 'true' or 'false'. (Carey, 1995)

The threat is not the new technology per se, but its controllers. It is the threat of power unchecked, which negates the function of the state and its elected representatives to protect and preserve culture-specific value-standards and norms against the onslaught of the globalised 'business culture' . The point is not, whether actual abuse of power takes place; the very potential constitutes a new - if intangible - threat to political and cultural autonomy of individuals and entire societies.

Not that there has not been a shortage of warnings.

Already in 1968 Professor Stanley Hoffmann of Harvard University drew attention to the subtle change from tangible to intangible modes of domination in international relations :

When force loses some of its prominence, power - my exercise of control over you - becomes the art of making you see the world the way I see it, and of making you behave in accordance with that vision. International politics in the past was often the arena of coercion without persuasion; it is tending to become an arena of persuasion more or less coercive.⁹

Vance Packard, American journalist and writer, drew attention to the techniques used by 'hidden persuaders' - the public relations specialists -to influence public opinion and voter preferences. In 1979 Packard warned of the 'people shapers' and their Orwellian reach :-

Human engineers are at work in a variety of fields. They are increasing the capacity of a relatively small number of people to control, modify, manipulate, reshape the lives of a great number of other people. And they are functioning in many countries, especially in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Israel, Russia, Australia, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. These new technologists draw primarily upon discoveries in the behavioural, biological and computer sciences. Control is being achieved over human actions, moods, wishes, thoughts..¹⁰

Globally synchronised news services and entertainment provide a unique means for influencing and shaping tastes and preferences in an ongoing 'socialisation' process. Here is a control mechanism of unprecedented reach, enabling its faceless operators to access every connected country, every home, to promote the values and views of their sponsors, to select information, to create commercial wants, and to conjure a world of make-believe that turns spectators into consumers of trivia, and politics into a game of showmanship. In the words of Carl Bernstein, the investigative journalist of Watergate fame, the media - "probably the most powerful of all our institutions today" - have abdicated their responsibilities and obligations, thereby fostering the emergence of the "idiot culture". ¹¹

At its best, advanced communications-and entertainment technology can serve as an impartial source of public information, a means for international bridge-building; at worst, it is a fearsome tool for indoctrination, information control, and the manipulation of consciousness, to ensure acceptance of 'designer' policies without questioning. In this 'brave new world' the entertainment industry assumes the role of cultural ambassador, creating new heroes who no longer wear armour but flash mobile phones, carry lap-top computers, and consume fast foods - the new role models of the business culture. Whenever traditional values are jettisoned, as in Third World countries, or when ideologies collapse as in the former Soviet Union, the vacuum is replenished by Western status symbols which promote emulation without evaluation.

The overriding exigency is conversion to a given point of view. The purpose is to 'get a message across¹, not to educate. Fear as a warning signal of impending danger is being rendered dysfunctional amidst the pseudo-reality of a 'consumer-friendly¹ world without threats. Fears of 'otherness' vanish amidst the rush to become streamlined, to acquire the outward trappings of that great leveller, the 'business culture', which distinguishes the acolytes of the new, global, entrepreneurial fraternity. Like Goethe's poetic tale of the sorcerer's apprentice who lost command over the magic powers he unleashed, new technologies - if misused -become tools of domination, all the more fearsome because of their attractive public relations 'packaging'.

REASSERTING AUTONOMY.

The change from crude power to sophisticated techniques of conscience manipulation has generated a 'social engineering¹ enterprise of global dimensions. It signals fundamental changes of public opinion formation and of democratic processes.

In a growing number of countries decision-makers are willing to integrate with a global system which commands the trade-and capital circuit. Independence or non-alignment come at the cost of isolation. Smaller nations cannot withstand the punitive effects of exclusion, such as capital flight, trade boycotts, or the curtailment of international credit facilities or investment flows, which threaten recalcitrants. Effectively, choice is reduced to accommodation and acceptance of the inevitable.

The sheer scope of these discontinuities, and the formidable means of enforcement at the disposal of a new breed of elite technocrats, is a new variable in the social sciences. Professor Joseph Camilleri of La Trobe University, Melbourne, has drawn attention to the pernicious dominance of the 'technocratic culture' and its threat to individual authenticity :

The psychological condition of alienation inevitably leads to the abstraction of the individual who becomes a mere number in the computerised calculations, predictions and decisions of the investor, the strategist, the administator, the politician.Domination and alienation are mirrored in the technocratic culture, in its philosophy, in its attitude to the future. The resulting psycho-social imbalance is such that the distinction betwen progress and decay, illusion and reality, reason and unreason,normality and abnormality, almost imperceptibly fade away ^.12

The politics of fear manipulation projects a world view in black-and-white that ignores shades of grey, substitutes 'political correctness' for tolerance, and dispenses material gains as a reward for acceptance and accommodation. There is growing public awareness of manipulative politics, and contempt for decision-makers who accommodate themselves to 'political realities' in fear of personal consequences :- not beheading as under Genghis Khan, not forced despatch to Siberia or Auschwitz, but loss of income and status - the threat of the 'business culture'.

No absolutist ruler or totalitarian dictator has wielded comparable power, or could exercise the extent of control, that has become possible with the advances of science and technology. The intrusiveness of the electronic media justifies apprehensions that civil and political rights are under challenge at national and international levels - those very rights that are protected by the United Nations Covenant (ICCPR) !

Will commonsense alone suffice to eliminate threats of force and fear manipulation from international relations ?

The United Nations remains the only platform for conciliation and peacekeeping, in spite of great power pressures and worsening shortages of funding. Unless, therefore, the collective authority of the United Nations General Assembly is strengthened by its members, a peaceful world free of fears remains an ideal. If the mendacious technocratic culture of modernity will proliferate unchecked, the gravest threat might be a new and fearsome totalitarianism of global reach.

REFERENCES.

¹ Deutscher, I. 1960. The Great Contest. London: Oxford University Press, p.60

² Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff eds.,1990. Contending Theories of International Relations. 3rd edit, New York: HarperCollins, p.396.

³ Erickson, J. 1982. The Soviet View of Deterrence', in Survival Vol XXVI No.6, p.242.

⁴ The Weekend Australian. 27-28 March 1999.

⁵ Jen/is, R. 1976. Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p.69

quoted in ⁶ D.Volkan, Julius & Montville(1990 )⁷ 'The Psychodynamics of International Relationships" Vol.I, Lexington, Massachusets, USA-

^-8 Kennan, G. 1984, The State of US-Soviet Relations', The Choice: Nuclear Weapons v. Security, ed. G.Prins, London: Chatto & Windus, p.137.

Weekend Australian. 2-3 October 1993, p. 12.

⁹CHoffmann,9 S. 1968. 'Perceptions of Reality in the Franco-American Conflict', Image and Reality in World Politics, eds. J. Farrell and A.Smith. New York:

¹⁰Columbia Univ.Press,pp.58-59 . T Packard, V. 1979. ¹²The People Shapers. Melbourne: Nelson, p.3

¹¹Bernstein, C. 1992. The Idiot Culture¹, in The Weekend Australian. 13-14 June.