Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Questions and Answers
My positions on the U.N. and France
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2003-04-01
28 KB |
|
|
 |
 got into a debate with someone who's and American living in France. So I decided to edit it (this is the short reply), and put up the salient points as more clarification.
Americans are raised to believe that we are the good guys, and that all who think differently and disagree with us are the bad guys. Guess what: the world is not as binary as that.
The first article I wrote, before the war, was about how I think we should wait longer, and explaining a few of the facts about Palestine/Israel. http://www.igeek.com/articles/Politics/ForeignPolicy.txt That was a different forum. My next articles were about the war itself, and what to do in the now and about this war.
You can write that "this war is about THIS war" all you want, but the controversy is not only about the Iraqi conflict; it is about how the United States acts on the global scene in general.
No it isn't. Others are trying to make it be about that, to try to convince us that we should subjugate our interests to theirs. But I'm not buying it, and think that anyone who does is a fool. This war is about this war.
Their actions are resentments are about their own hypocritical biases and bigotries, and unwillingness to judge this action without the blinders of past bigotries. So we weren't nice in South America and often wrong. I agree. I agree that this should be discussed and debated more. How does this have anything to do with whether we are right in this case or not? How does this make it one iota better to let another Iraqi get murdered because they don't like the current regime? Because we are powerful we should act like we are impotent to help the inadequate and unwilling feel better about themselves? I don't think so.
Because we've all shoplifted something when we were kids, we should never be able to convict another murderer or rapist? I don't agree with your premise.
We naively believe that everything we do is for someone's good, and we become frustrated when a more cynical world doesn't accept this because they see our motives for what they really are.
They don't see actions for what they are, they see them through their biased eyes. And their eye's choose to see everything we do as "the evil rich superpower"; when we are being more benign, and tolerant than their society would be if they were in our position.
There are few exceptions. Switzerland is a great example. But then again, sitting by and watching rape and claiming neutrality isn't the pinnacle of morality in my book, and something I'm glad we don't model ourselves after. They can, and I don't have a problem with that, but we choose to act. Of course the rapist is going to call us names and be mad as hell. But I can live with that, and think it is better than the alternative.
The fact is that nations are not in the business of being good or bad; they are in the business of pursuing their interests.
I agree. But interests and morality can sometimes align; something like the foreign policy equivalent of Adam Smiths invisible hand. Or sometimes it doesn't matter. But in most disagreements, one side is more wrong than the other.
When American interests help free 27 millions of Iraqi's from a tyrant and few hundreds thousands fanatics, then we're doing good and it might be in our self-interests because of the threats they've made to us, world peace, or regional stability.
When French interests are willing to leave 27 million Iraqi's enslaved for the sake of oil contracts, money, or politics having to do with a large arab population, or when they leave despotic tyrants that threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and ignore international law because it is easier than doing what is right, then they can be doing bad and harming their long term self-interests.
To avoid that this gets out of hand too much, there is an international body called the United Nations that provides a forum for discussion, diplomacy, and the (hopefully) peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But not all morality is subjective. The U.N. is Khadafi, Pol Pot, Stalin and others, voting on protecting human rights. When they do the right thing, we should agree with them, and when they do the wrong, we should ignore them.
Do you know how many more Kosovars would be dead if we waited for the U.N. to do the right thing?
How many Rwandans died waiting for the U.N. to come to their rescue?
How many Cambodians died waiting for the U.N. to come to their rescue?
Would WWII ever been "sanctioned" by the U.N. when one or more of the combatants had veto rights? How long should we have ignored the holocaust?
These are serious, not sarcastic questions that we need to ask about the U.N.
Did the Chinese get U.N. permission to authorize Tibet?
Did the Russians get U.N. permission to authorize their treatment of their conflicts?
Did the French get U.N. permission to go into Angola?
So the U.N. is really a double standard where the world gets to judge the U.S. and use it against us, because we act better than most of them. Then they want us to pay most of the bill. The people screaming the loudest about the U.N. (see France), are also the one's most likely to ignore it themselves. There's a word for that; hypocrisy. So don't wonder why we treat it as such? And we certainly give their hypocritical little whining more weight than it deserves.
We should TRY to persuade the U.N. to work with us, and do the right thing. (Sometimes these are aligned, sometimes not). But if the U.N. fails to do its duty, that is never an argument that we shouldn't try to do ours anyways.
Sometimes the U.N. works, sometimes it does not. When it does not, it is usually because the national interests of the various parties prevent finding sufficient common ground.
Agreed. However, just because it works or not, doesn't mean it is moral or not. Those are separate. Like the Chinese, Russians, Germans and French are selling arms to a tyrannical brutal dictator that is rated by the U.N. to be one of the worst civil rights violators in existence today. So 4 major countries are going for greed, and willing to ignore torture chambers, WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), gassing their own people, and so on, all for the Euro, Yen, or Ruble. Now they are saying we should ignore our morality and follow theirs?
You're implying that majority rules, and that the UK and U.S. should ignore what is right, and just do what is popular?
I do not believe that the fact that I am American is sufficient for me to objectively state that the national interest of the US is worthy of more consideration than the national interest of any other country, even though subjectively, US interests are obviously more important to me.
So if you see other rioting and violating rights, do you jump in because it is popular? How about gang rape? At what point do you say, "I don't care what others are doing wrong, I'm going to do right". There should be some point at which nations and people decide enough is enough; and fuck what is popular.
If you are arguing that everything is subjective, and all nations are just out for their own interests, then might may be the only thing that makes right. So we are right. Otherwise the choices are that we should expect under objective measures that the U.N. will do a duty that it has repeatedly proven that it won't do. In which case the U.N. is wrong, and we are again right.
So if the U.N. won't do what it should, then we should just ignore it? The world is not a democracy, where Khadaffi and Stalin should have a say in civil rights. It is a situation where if you piss people off enough, then they might get involved. They might use diplomacy (the U.N.), and they might use force, depending on their motivations or sense of urgency, or how far you've exhausted their patience, or their perceived threat.
This action is in our interests and seen as right. So what if it is unpopular? That's their problem. I think all those that oppose it are wrong, and am willing to fight for our interests. That means they get to choose "for me" or "against me".
The U.N. has proven time and time again, it isn't for me, or my interests, or civil rights. When the U.N. fails to act, that reflects on the U.N. more than on those who decide to go beyond it. Some are naively trying to blame us for what the U.N. has failed to do; and thus ignore what is righteous, and all reason, in the process.
The U.S. should fully adhere to the international court of law in The Hague (meaning: to be bound by the court's decision just like all the other participating countries, and not just taking advantage of the court when it suits our purposes, as for example in the Milosevic case).
Courts are constructs. We have courts in our country, and courts in others. There are many venues. But Political courts may or may not be righteous. Should we support kangaroo courts that do stupid or wrong things? How about Hitler's courts for dealing with Jews and Gypsies, instead of our own? How about Saddam's courts for dealing with Shiite's or the Kurds? Should justice be a popularity contest and not about morals, ethics or laws? Should we not try occasionally for just a little more justice or a higher standard?
Sometimes we're going to go for one venue, sometimes another. It really matters what our interests or justice's interests are. But I don't see their construct (some court) as any more valid than our own; it really matters who has the better judges, who understand and follow the laws better, along with which are the better laws.
United States have pursued their national interests in...
Was I talking about those? How do those make Saddam a nicer guy?
I stated in one of the articles, I COMPLETELY agree with open debate and discussing the things the U.S. does wrong; or more often a government that doesn't stop our companies our people from doing wrong. But that is 100% separate from Iraq. And the time to throw those in our face is not when we are doing something right, or in this war. This war is about THIS war. And the actions leading to it, which have nothing to do with South America or Israel for that matter.
Your logical fallacy is IMPLYING that because the U.S. was once wrong, that they are always wrong. Focus on the issue at hand.
Imagine you once did something you were ashamed of, or wrong for. Does that mean every other thing you do is wrong, or needs to be measured against that? We learn and grow. And sandbagging others, or allowing them to do that to you, is foolish, and I'm not buying it.
The U.S. has SERIOUS foreign policy issues that it needs to deal with. This could have been handled much better, or this could have been handled MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse. But just because we are not perfect, does not mean we are not right in this action, or that the alternative of this action may be muchworse than inaction.
This isn't about U.S. hating bashing, unless you're trying to get back for past wrongs. And that kind of vindictive sandbagging guarantees that a relationship can't grow. (If you doubt me, every time you meet an old friend, remind him of something he did wrong, and see how long he stays a friend or considers what you have to say). That's why the other countries are wrong and we are right; because their arguments are wrong, and ours is more correct and more logical.
There is also the question of double standards. The United States expects the world to buy into a model where the US can do one thing and dictate a different behavior to others.
And that's an issue with our foreign policy, and all nations. Are we worse than others at it? I don't think so. All countries do it., especially the ones that scream loudest. Look at France screaming at the U.S. about the U.N. and Iraq, but did they get permission for Angola? Hypocrites. So we need to weigh relatively what is happening now.
In this case, we are being MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCHbetter than the enemy. Where's the outrage against them? There's mostly vocal outrage against us, which proves their immaturity and bias.
In fact, the arab worlds silence on condemning the actions of Saddam or his regime reflect on them. It shows not that we should consider their emotional and irrational hatred more, but less. They are demonstrating why we should ignore them on a daily basis. That they think Al-Jazeera is the same thing as CNN shows their objectivity on a daily basis.
So the world can make stupid arguments. Like our treatment at Guantanamo makes us as bad as the Iraqi's? That proves those who say it are either stupid, uninformed, wrong, can't think rationally or can't debate logically.
In this war, we've been far far more humane to the enemy than they've been to us. If we start doing wrong acts in this war, then those acts should be attacked, but not necessarily the whole war. But we aren't talking about that. People are instead trying to attack us for things they do much worse; and they deserve the respect (or lack thereof) that such inane arguments beg for.
Others are trying to sandbag us with all of our past wrongs at once, and comparing all of those wrongs to a subset of the current wrongs of another. Like anyone could live up to that fair a measure. They are trying to say, "see the U.S. is worse, so they should do nothing, or be our puppet" while ignoring that their own actions have a much worse track record. I won't buy into that. And if you're smart, you won't either.
Because the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia, and they are not the paragon of human rights; there is no moral high ground here
Actually the world is more complex than that. Saudi Arabia, while being extreme, may be one of the more moderate of Arab countries; even if they are disgusting compared to objective western beliefs. And there are bigger issues to deal with first; meaning the worst offenders and most hostile to interests of us, and human rights.
If you stop one rape, but let another happen because the guy has a gun, does that mean you are immoral? Does that mean you should have let the first rape happen to be fair? I don't think so. You do what you can, based on the situation.
Do you attack your friends with minor character flaws first, or go after your enemies with their homicidal ones? This isn't hypocrisy this is prioritization and balance. Those that argue it is hypocrisy are illogical whiney little people whose arguments should be ignored because they are demonstrating that they are immature and irrational. The louder they yell it, the more attention they are drawing to their own hypocrisy and stupidity.
We tried to stop the Vietcong and knew what they were going to do, and knew what would happen in Cambodia and the rest of South East Asia. We failed. And then we couldn't stop the killing fields because of the peaceniks. But were we wrong to try? Was the other side right, just because they meant well; even if millions died because of their ignorance? Many just think we were wrong because we exist. They don't like our power, and conviction, so anything we do will be twisted and perverted into being wrong. But like a Rorschach inkblot that shows their perception more than our actions.
We tried, many got killed when we tried, many more when we did not. Which is better? I'd rather die trying, than be French and just rape them to their last breath and call it justice. I agree that ALL humans are a little hypocrical, and all nations too. But that glass houses and stones stuff applies. You want to compare our civil rights violation with Iraq? Or compare most of those that are most vocal with attacking us, against ours? Go right ahead. We're not perfect, but in these cases a lot better. And in case you forget, we got into South Asia to try to help the French; and that was another case where they left us hanging.
I don't want to sandbag the French with their repeated back-stabbings, double-dealings, failures to pay people back, or unwillingness to stand behind what they say they are going to do, or to do what is right; unless they are attacking our actions first. Then they might deserve to have their own actions questioned in kind.
French, German, Russian, or anyone else's opinion is just as valid as what our country believes
Nope. Our beliefs are based on what we believe. Validity is based on validity, not based on popularity, and not divided equally. You do NOT say Ghandi and Hitler had equally valid world views, because it is always a 1:1 ratio. You judge their actions. I'm judging ours and Frances, and I've concluded they are more wrong; not because I'm American, but because I'm willing to think, reflect and consider.
The Security Council alone was (and is) entitled to decide that the time for military action had come. Those are the rules of the game, and either we abide by them or we cease playing.
Nope.
The U.N. is A body (one of the many) that could decide that things had gone too far. NATO was another body. We were another. But every nation can act on their own, or build their own coalition. We chose the last. That is no more, or less valid than the U.N. The French and others, want us to subjugate our interests to the U.N., where they have more of a say; and of course, they don't do the same. Such is international politics; but we would be fools to live by a standard that they won't live by; especially when they set the bar so low. Better to live by our own standards.
So you only quoted the part of the rules that you liked. I mentioned the rest.
If you are about to make what you consider a huge mistake, which of the two is a better friend: the one who follows you blindly or the one that does everything he can to prevent you from getting burned?
France wasn't looking out for OUR interests? You're not seriously going to argue that are you? They were looking out for theirs, and willing to sacrifice Iraqi's, our interests, and anyone else's that suited them.
What the world expects of us as the only superpower is an unambiguous, fair, consistent, and righteous behavior, not a "do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do" stance.
The U.N. blocks anything that is righteous and fair because it is made up of regimes that are hypocritical and self serving. (Ours included). They ALL play that "do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do", and they all get pissed when someone else does it, and makes rationalizations when it is their own. That's what they do.
Maybe they have unrealistic expectations and are holding us to a standard much higher than they hold themselves. Arab culture seems unwilling to consider introspection; it is a cultural thing. That's shallow, but their normal behavior. But when they point the finger at me, it isn't going to hold as much weight, because they are so biased and unbalanced as to consider their own issues.
We also have this "but-we've-been-so-good-to-them-in-the-past-how-can-they-do-this-to-us" attitude. I am so sick of hearing how the Marshall Plan saved Europe! Do you really believe that we implemented the Marshall Plan out of the goodness of our hearts? Think again! This plan firmly cemented our position in Europe to this day, and our economic assistance (from which we've profited handsomely, by the way) is the main reason that the United States was able to take over world leadership from the British after WWII. As I wrote above: nations are not altruistic; they pursue their interests. This is normal.
Agreed.
On the other hand, we did forgive France their war debts, and they never offered to pay us a penny beyond that. And do you honestly think the French would have done a fraction of that for us? I trust the Germans a little more, and consider them better allies. And don't hold that out for Italians and so on. But I doubt any of them would have done a fraction for us what we did and do for them. Such is life.
But look, the French take more, and are the rudest and snottiest country and is rude and arrogant by policy; but they attack us as being rude and arrogant. They have corrupt Governments, and attack others for being a fraction as corrupt. They were horribly imperialistic, and attack us for being imperialistic when we could work at it for 100 years and never be as bad as them. How loud would they yell if we tried to ban "frenchisms" from all English speaking countries? They claim that we are being insensitive, culturally bigoted and unfair in persecutions of war (or don't like how we behave in war), and then there's Angola, their anti-semitism and attitudes towards North Africans. I find them loud-mouthed, back stabbing hypocrites by action, and not very good allies by deed. So to throw insult to injury, when they call us greedy and looking out for our own interests, I'll throw out that they never paid us back for WWII. But that's the least of the insults they've done for their allies.
(Yes, I realize they've done some good as well. So what? Many people thought Jeffrey Dahlmer was a nice guy, Hitler was a vegetarian that thought he was helping his country, and O.J. Simpson could play football, we're not talking about their good acts, we're talking about the ones that make them untrustworthy or dangerous).
The old saw of "without the Americans, the French would speak German" is easily countered with "and without the French, there would not be Americans". Both arguments are stupid beyond belief. Lafayette did not help the Americans because he wanted to be nice to them; he did so because it was bad for the British, and therefore good for France. Similarly, the United States acted in its best interest when it rebuilt Europe; America's stature and power in the world today documents this vividly.
There are differences to degrees, motives, and recentness. So one argument is far more valid than the other.
People are still alive that saw friends die to save the French (or were wounded doing the same). These acts impact them greatly, and veterans of WWII have very legitimate cry's about the French.
The French sent money and some troops 200 years ago, to annoy the English. We saved their asses many times; I think we paid them back and then some. There's such a HUGE difference. Maybe if the French acknowledged it once in a while, or acted grateful, then we wouldn't have to. I don't feel like that debt has been paid, because many of that culture don't want to admit that they needed help. Let alone made an effort to pay us back on any count. Bring up WWII to a Frenchman and you often get a story about how they were in Le Resistance because they once gave a German soldier bad directions, and they try to minimize our contributions or maximize their own. That's arrogance, then they often call the Americans arrogant.
On the other hand, I'll agree that they helped us 200 years ago, and gave us a statue 100 years later. Of course they had a revolution and tried to form a government on our model, but seemed to have totally missed the point and derailed on the way. And their empire has been crumbling under the arrogance of their culture for a few hundred years, because like the arabs they love to point the finger anywhere but at themselves, and refuse to be introspective about their problems.
I am very disappointed, mainly because you're usually better than this. I sense a great deal of anger, frustration, even rage in your writing.
Some anger, and more frustration. I hate hypocrisy and backstabbing. Comes from being abused as a child, and having a high sense of justice and righteousness against being wronged; and having a few people let me down and stab me in the back, be forgiven, and have them repeat the act, multiple times. I've learned the hard way that some people (or countries) are untrustworthy and while I give people and countries many chances, there needs to be some limits.
Rage? That to me is unjustified or irrational anger or frustration. I'm very rational about why I don't like some actions, why I'm frustrated, or why I feel that at least some of ours are justified. I haven't called for the Nuking of France, or the boycotting of all their products, or the dissolution of the U.N. I don't wear the T-Shirts (even in jest) that say, "First Iraq, then Paris, then Hollywood". Let alone the many more serious things that people are saying.
Germany and the U.S. should probably make amends, even when we find out all of the bad they've done and how dirty their hands are. We've been allies for a long time, and there's still room for forgiveness. But they haven't been as extreme and hostile as the French.
My reactions are very rational and moderate.
I'd pull out of NATO; as you expressed International Politics are about national self interests; we are getting far less out of it than we're putting into it. Time to go.
I wouldn't eliminate or pull out of the U.N. (as many say we should), if for no other reason than our veto power. But I would try to build a new organization that has more teeth and testicles than the U.N., to try to setup more rules of conduct and reasons for involvement. I'd make a more exclusive club, that is harder to join, and requires more commitment to stay in. (Mainly an anti-terrorist and anti-civil rights coalition that despots and tyrants can't join and bog down with political wastes of time. And maybe make it so that those that contribute the most, would get the most vote/control/reward).
I'd definitely publicize every bad thing I find out about the French in Iraq, just to return the favor of them having a big mouth and working against us. I'd try to block any French contracts in reconstruction, since they've been against it happening in the first place. But that is not about retribution or vengeance as much as not wanting someone (some country) to profit from doing the wrong things. They wanted to protect the status quo of the tyrant, and their promised oil contracts if they could get things reversed in the U.N., and so they deserve to reap the rewards of who they choose as their allies.
Then I'd wait to see how the U.S. French relations are in 5-10 years, to see where to go from there. They deserve maybe another chance or two (at best), though they've exhausted too many already. But I think relations should be effected long term by their actions. France makes too many mistakes, and then never accepts responsibility for them, so I while an apology to us (if we find things) would be the right thing to do, I expect it will never happen; and so they should be treated as someone (some country) who is not trustworthy, mature, can accept their own errors, let along be properly contrite. I just don't think it is in the French character to do that.
That's pissed and hurt, but not rage.
And none of this is directed towards French individuals, but to the government and culture that is supporting it.
I still talk with my French friends, and exchanged emails with a few of them. They are individuals, as are we. But as a country they are wrong in supporting an evil despot for personal gain, or to try to avoid embarrassment of something that they did wrong, by trying to attack us for something we are doing right. As a culture and nation I think they have many more problems than we do, but they seem willing to criticize our flaws publicly, so I'm just returning the favor. The difference is that I have a lot more ammo than they do, I just throw it in their face less often.
If someone French (or anywhere) supports the peace effort but was not happy with the methods or means that their corrupt Chirac did it in, or they are sorry for the way that the French press or others have treated the U.S., then I wouldn't have the slightest problem with them. (Well, I'd think they are naive and disagree about the peace at any price part -- but that's just disagreement, like I have with Germans, which is a whole degree or two less). But if they believe that the French are using the right means, or support their government and culture actions, then we have a serious problem; one that is based on their hypocrisy and double-dealing towards us, and that may be an irreconcilable difference that I won't soon forget. I forgive people a few times; but eventually get tired of it. And France is at the end of its rope for me. Eventually, you have to cut your losses and write them off as untrustworthy; based on their actions.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
