Oh where to begin?
First, I do not have complete disdain for the UN. A forum that the countries of the world can debate and dialogue is much more preferable to a world of isolation. The problem lies in the fact that the UN as a body has NO authority to enforce its charter and its members on the Security Council can pass any resolution they want, but those resolutions can be ignored by any nation. To pretend that this body has a lot of clout you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. A prime example is the recent resolution that passed on the 27th of September re-resoluting a prior resolution for sanctions against Iran for continuing to pursue its nuclear program. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Iran gave us the finger after the UN imposed sanctions on them for the third time and the 'new' resolution, which is just an affirmation of the 3rd and last resolution, will result in Iran suddenly dropping its nuclear program? Gimme a break. Russia and China did not want tougher sanctions placed on Iran since they do extensive business with them. China is Iran's biggest importer of oil. They wouldn't want to rock the boat and potentially damage any business or future business with the Islamic Republic.
Second, withholding payments is not for the UN refusing to bow to U.S. demands, but a protest because of the UN's Human Rights Council, which was founded in 2006, because it singled out Israel and no other country for human rights violations. At the same time the council removed independent investigators from Belarus and Cuba, which are not bastions for human rights. Indeed, the council has Cuba as one of its members, which is hilarious given the councils purpose.
Third, Ian concedes that diplomacy has failed with regards to Iran, North Korea and Darfur. Since this is the case I ask Ian, what should we do about these continued threats? I am all ears. My point in the last post was that we can see changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not perfect but we have two democracies established and hopefully two future allies.
Forth, with regards to Europe, I was merely commenting on the fact that the US shoulders the lion’s share of the burden for NATO. This being the case the European countries use money they used to appropriate for defense for social programs since the U.S.A subsidizes their protection. Thank God for the new French President Sarkozy for promising to step up to the plate and take more responsibility in NATO and Europe's defense.
Fifth, with regards to Ian's side note on taxes and spending priorities, healthcare may be universal under European socialism, but it is universally subpar to American healthcare on so many levels that the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the U.S for their healthcare. As a matter of fact, many Canadians buy American insurance! Also, along with the higher taxes, longer vacations, etc., Europe also has higher unemployment, especially for young people. France has such stringent laws on hiring and firing that an employer needs to jump through so many hoops to get rid of an employee that isn't useful to the company. This results in an employer who is scared to hire because he can't get rid of the employee if he turns out to be a bad investment and also poorer job performance since the employee has such ridiculous protections from the government.
Sixth, I can't believe Ian called the regimes of Mao Zedong and Fedel Castro "somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people." Ian you know your history! They were all bad. Why do thousands of Cubans flee to the shores of Florida? Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of millions of people. Indeed, communism killed many many millions more than fascism ever did. Karl Marx's ideals led to gulags, forced starvations, the killing of intellectuals and walls that were made to keep their populations from escaping to freedom. Indeed, North Korea has minutemen on their borders too. Contrary to our minutemen, they have orders to shot to kill. The minutemen on the Korean border aren't there to stop the influx of South Koreans trying to embrace communist utopia, they are there to kill North Koreans who want to chose their own destinies. Imagine if America shot at Mexicans trying to come in! Oh, the outrage! Imagine all the angry letters the UN would send us! Communism, "somewhat more humanitarian," bah. The 'somewhat' was put in because Ian knew that he was on shaky ground with that statement. At least he added that.
Seventh, Iran and the hostage crisis took place under the Carter administration, which couldn't save the hostages, despite all that diplomacy. However, as soon as President Reagan took office, they were free that very day. Hmm, maybe they knew that a Republican with some balls to stand up to such an act with force might actually put his money where his mouth was.
Think about that when you go to VOTE!
Oh, and while we aren't perfect, this is the greatest place on Earth to be! Why else would people flock to our shores from all over the world to live here, including my father?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama: Restoring Diplomacy to the Oval Office
Besides discussing the legacy of the war in Iraq, Eric addressed the state of the US national image abroad and what sort of effect the neoconservative Bush administration had on it. Eric’s previous post was filled with disdain for the UN, which, although “primarily funded by the US,” has become “a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is for going it alone.”
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)