Richard Hass has developed a new vision for the world, and
decided that a number of the “buzzwords” currently used to describe it are no
longer valid. He picked 13 of those words, defined them as he sees them, and took
them to the “woodshed” in the belief that this will make the world a better
place … or so he says.
He discusses the list in an article that came under the
title: “13 International Relations Buzzwords That Need to Get Taken to the
Woodshed” and the subtitle: “From 'smart power' to 'surgical strike,' the world
would be a better place if these phrases were never said again.” The article
was published on February 2, 2017 on the website of the Foreign Relations
magazine.
The first two phrases on the Hass list are “global citizen”
and “international community.” To denigrate these two principles says a great
deal about the writer. He does not like the United Nations (UN), and wishes to
see it disappear. In fact, he dislikes the organization so much; he does not
mention it at all in the article.
Unsurprisingly, when faced with this reality, the first
thing that comes to mind is that Richard Hass believes the UN made a dreadful
mistake in creating Israel, therefore deserves to be banished forever.
Surprisingly, however, that's not what the author says in the rest of the
article. In fact, when you read between the lines (a well known metaphor) you
discover that Hass's aim is to construct a world that rejects what humanity has
endeavored to accomplish since Alexander the Great tried to bring the known
world of his time, under one flag.
Look what Hass says and make your own judgment. Under the
rubric of 'global citizen,' he asserts, “there is no such thing as a global
citizen despite what the Davos set might profess or aspire to.” In other words,
Hass says whether or not the status of global citizen actually exists, it is
better not to have it because the better way to doing things is for everyone to
live in their national cocoon while keeping a timorous eye on the world
outside.
He goes on: When you do away with the idea of global
citizen, people will cease to think in terms of appealing to the “international
community” the way they do “every time there is a crisis in the world,” says
Hass. The reason why he objects to the idea in the first place is that people
never seem to agree in sufficient numbers on anything, according to him.
Well, Richard, go tell this to those who blow their entrails
out of their bellies hollering that BDS is squeezing Israel badly. And when you have
done this, and got an earful, go ask those who squeezed Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe )
and South Africa
if they believe their efforts have not produced good results in those places.
You may just be surprised.
Seemingly oblivious of those realities, Hass goes on to
repudiate the idea of “right to self-determination,” because he says that
during the colonial era “people under foreign occupation were thought to have
the right to their own country.” Yes, sir; that's what the world thought then;
it is what the world thinks now. This is why the international community you so
despise, is rejecting the occupation of Palestine
by imported foreign Jews.
And there is a reason why Richard Hass wants to normalize
the idea that it is okay for the army of one entity to march into someone's
country and occupy it. Why he rejects the idea that people have the right to
fight for their freedom in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine .
Why America and its Arab
allies tossed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait . Why there are American
troops guarding South Korea .
Why NATO is augmenting its forces in Eastern Europe .
And why a coalition of several dozen armies is fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria .
Richard Hass is advancing all that nonsense because those
who fight for the freedom of their country are recognized as legitimate ‘freedom
fighters’ – another phrase that Hass vehemently rejects. This is because a
military occupation is the most violent act an army can commit. Moreover, the
casualties that occur, regardless as to which side causes them, are the
responsibility of the occupier. And when the latter sends civilians into the
occupied territories, it commits the most heinous and cowardly crime you can
imagine against humanity.