Oligarchs, the military-industrial complex, the US, and other NATO governments are defining the American foreign policy debate with funding and using “human rights” as a stick against foreign states not aligned with US-led Western global hegemony, says security and foreign affairs analyst Mark Sleboda.
“On the surface, the Atlantic Council fracas and turf war appears as an ideological foreign policy fight between insurgent realists, generally powerless but newly vocal and platformed, and the dominant bipartisan US foreign policy elite, colloquially known as ‘the Blob', which is often termed ‘liberals' but actually comprises both neocons and liberal interventionists/imperialists”, says Mark Sleboda, a US military veteran and international affairs and security analyst.
The verbal swordplay between members of the Cold War era-founded Atlanticist think tank was triggered by an article by AC newcomers Emma Ashford and Mathew Burrows that was “slightly less anti-Russia than most of the Atlantic Council's usual screeds”. The report in question suggested “an alternate US foreign policy towards Russia where ‘human rights' and ‘democracy promotion' is deprioritised in favour of a realpolitik calculation of US national interests that assents to cooperation and compromise where and when necessary”, explains the security analyst.
US Weapon of Choice: ‘Human Rights' and ‘Democracy'
However, in reality the fight is not really over “realism” versus “liberalism” per se, as the think…
