|
To put the politics aside, as you say, we would have to view the inauguration speech as a non-marketing speech. In essence, to take it literally. When viewed literally, there is the inherent connotation that democracy and freedom will be strived for in foreign lands for the express purpose of the safety of this land. To paraphrase Bush: freedom here is more and more contingent on freedom in foreign lands. This is an essentially under handed method of promoting freedom which allows subjective and selective implementation of our efforts to secure freedom abroad. If Sudan is not a threat to the U.S., it is not necessary to ensure freedom in Sudan. If Sudan is a threat to the U.S., the U.S. will attempt to promote freedom in Sudan to ensure its own safety - not out of the consideration of basic human rights.
But even that is simply a literal version of the President's inauguration speech. If we view it as the marketting that it assuredly is, we know that the U.S. has not and does not work towards "freedom" in foreign lands, it works towards stability. Stability in a chaotic region of the world is more readily achieved through dictatorship. Reviewing the recent (50 year) history of U.S. foreign policy, it is quite clear that the U.S. supports dictatorships that are favorable to U.S. business practices. In this view, "freedom" and "democracy" are simply marketting terms for stability through friendly, corrupt control systems.
|