Roger, Horse and all MOQists:
Roger is asking for a specific bolw-by-blow response, so here it is. To help
make things easier to read I'll label my NEW comments "Dave B" instead of
the usual DMB.
DMB:
Don't you think the USA should be held accountable for her actions?
Shouldn't she take responsibility for her foreign policies? I mean, what I
see missing from the whole "making progress" debate is any discussion of
that. Its not even a matter of charity or generosity. Its a matter of doing
injury to other nations and other cultures. This is what breeds resentment
and terror. Did you know that the USA?...
Trained and funded Osama bin Ladin. Has sold weapons and given money to
Saddam Hussein. Sold Indonesia the weapons it used to perpetrate a genocide
in East Timor. Helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in
Argentina and installed a military dictatorship. Runs "the school of the
Americas", which trains terrorists. That Angola's Savimbe, who killed half a
million of his own people was called "the Abe Lincoln of Africa" by Reagan
and "one of the true heros of our time" by Jean Kirpatrick. That Henry
Kissenger is being sued for war crimes. That a third of the planet's
population current suffers from US economic sanctions. And has supported a
vast number of repressive regiems throughout the world. I could go on for
days, but you get the idea. Terrorism is mostly caused by blowback. To
simply attribute the world's problems to "their" dysfunctionality strikes me
as a profound abdication of responsibility.
RISKY:
David, this list is so petty and mean spirited that it adds nothing to the
debate. You know as well as anybody that the US has supported lesser evils
and has supported one-time friends or heros that later turned out to be
foes.
You know that supporting a friend can lead to unintended consequences. You
know that out of context 'one liner' diplo-speak is no way to judge foriegn
policy. You know that the war against communism required some questionable
allies, and in some cases to some regretable alliances. You know that our
sanctions against Iraq, North Korea and Cuba are social sanctions aimed at
avoiding/penalizing dysfunctionality and totalitarian exploitation.
Dave B:
Petty? I don't think so. The foreign policy actions listed have resulted in
serious consequences and that was the point. Blowback kills. Mean spirited?
Quite the opposite. I was in fact complaining about the kind of cruelty that
terror is responding to. Again, its about blowback from our own actions.
It's a criticism of the injuries that our foreign policies have inflicted.
Out of context 'one liner' diplo speak? I don't even know what that is
supposed to mean. But I'd say a good test of foreign policy is to ask how
we'd like it if the other guys adopted them. Lesser evils? Unintended
consequences? Regretable alliances? To say the least! I'd characterize it as
bad choices, short-sightedness and getting into bed with the worst kind of
thugish human rights abusers. I realize these actions were mostly justified
in the name of anti-communism, but this hardly constitutes an excuse. The
point was that we have to take responsibility for these actions regardless
of the reasons. The response offered struck me as defensive and insulting.
That's what led me to the conclusion that you were offended. It also struck
me as a series of excuses, which led me to think that you were too
uncritical of the giant and too fond of the giant. The list of actions
contradict our highest ideals and to try and justify or excuse them shows
little respect for those intellectual values.
RISKY:
However, YOU ARE RIGHT that the US has made its share of mistakes (and
successes). We need to think more for the long term, hold ourselves
accountable and avoid contradicting our ideals. Some of the totalitarian
leaders we have supported in the past and today (Saudi Arabia comes to mind)
are evil and our support has and will continue to come back to haunt us.
And
that steel quota/tarrif thing is an absolute kick in the face of "free"
trade. We are more active in world events than any other nation, but that
brings more responsibility, not less.
Dave B:
Hmmm. Petty, mean spirited AND RIGHT? That seems awfully contraditory. Or
maybe its that you're allowed to say it, but I'm not? You can't have it both
ways. The kind of short-sighted, regrettable alliance making goes on as we
speak. The northern alliance of Afganistan are one of the few groups in the
world that are actually worse than the taliban. I'll bet you dollars to
donuts that we'll be back there again to fight against them in ten or twenty
years. The military dictatorship in Pakistan are in our corner at the
moment, but we're going to regret that deeply too. And all of this shows
that stupid foreign policies continue even in this post-cold war era. And
the fact that we are "more active in world events than any other nation"
while at the same time our foreign aid donations rank at the very bottom
only shows how militaristic and irresponsible we are. It demonstrates
disrespect for other nations and cultures. That's imperialism.
RISKY:
Certainly nobody is simplifying the problem with terrorism or lack of social
progress on any single dimension. The solution isn't just that they need to
get less "dysfunctional," or that US needs to cause less problems. Complex
problems often require complex solutions.
Dave B:
Huh? I don't know what to say here. Those comments are too vague and
equivocal to have any real meaning. They amount to little more than saying,
"hard things are hard".
HORSE:
Victorian (UK) foreign policy was to subdue each and every nation that
failed
to comply
with it's favoured economic model and goals... which appears to be identical
to current
US foreign policy.
Hopefully the new(ish) US imperialism will go the same way as Victorian
imperialism...
DMB...
Exactly. Its no accident that US imperialism resembles the UK's colonialism.
The US began to absorb Europe's colonies beginning in the late 19th century.
It started with Spain's Cuba and the Phillipines in the 1890's, and was
wildly excellerated after WW2 when the UK pretty much said, "Here, take
these countries. We can't afford to keep them anymore." Naturally, the US
has developed a more efficient form of imperialism. After all, colonialism
is a rather expensive way to exploit nations. All that's left now are
puppets, allies and enemies. "You're either with us or you're against us."
RISKY:
So exporting our ideals now classifies as IMPERIALISM? Since the start of
WWII the US has done as much or more than any other country to defend
peoples
right to self determination. I already admitted that we made some mistakes
along the way in our war against the spread of totalitarianism (nazi,
fascist, communist, fundamentalist), but if not for us I suspect Horse and
his European buddies would currently be little nazis in training. We didn't
assume control of Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia, or the
Phillipines, and we aren't going to assume control of Afghanistan or Iraq
either.
Dave B:
Neither Horse nor I even came close to suggesting that there's anything
wrong with exporting our ideals, which in fact flatly contradict
imperialism. Imperialism is bending other nations to our own economic goals,
the wishes of the giant, if you will. Since WW2 the US has proped up plenty
of right-wing totalitarian governments in the name of fighting Soviet
totalitarianism. And clear distinctions need to be made in any analysis of
that 50 year period. But you've listed five ideologies, nine counties and a
continent in just two sentences. How can I even begin to untangle such a
mess? Its true that the US effort was critical in WW2 and was very generous
in rebuilding Europe afterward, but the topic is imperialism and blowback,
is it not? Further, I'd say that effectively the US did assume control of
Japan, Germany, the Phillipines and other countries. The Brits practically
invent Kuwait. One of the reasons that Italy has had dozens of governments
since the war is becasue of the CIA's interference in their elections. And
the regiems in Afganistan and Iraq, ones that we're currently having to deal
with, were effectively propped up by the US too. I should add that througout
the cold war we have resisted lots of indigenous anti-colonial movements,
movement intent of self-determination, by labeling them as communists.
DMB:
And this is a source of great confusion. Most Americans believe they live in
a democratic nation, but in fact are citizens of a global thermo-nuclear
empire. And what we're seeing is not true globalism, as in the rule of
international law, so much as the world-wide export of some rather
provincial corporate values that is resulting in the massive extinction of
plants, animals, cultures and languages. Its estimated that half of the
world's 6,800 languages will be lost within a hundred years. How does a
person fight all that?
RISKY:
Your second sentence is itself quite confused. Are we a democratic republic
or not? What makes us an empire?
Dave B:
The second sentence is confused? I don't think so. Its a statement about the
confusion of others. It speaks to the difference between what people believe
and what is really true. The fact is, the principles of democracy are
inconsistent with the features of an Empire. Empires are willing to exploit
other nations for their economic goals. Empires are about extracting wealth,
whether that extratction process violates democracy and human rights or not.
The US has overthrown nations and propped up authoritarian governments for
the sake of cheap bananas, coffee and oil. That's an empire. I can
understand where one might get these wrong impressions. The actual state of
affairs in the world is far, far away from the impression one would get from
government spokesmen or from corporate news. A person has to go out of their
way, seek out alternative news sources, has to read some books on history
and foreign policy to even begin to see what's really going on.
RISKY:
As for the export of corporate values, I take it you are refering to the
value of free enterprise and the social knowledge of capitalism. The export
is voluntary. I believe the problem that you and Horse have is that you are
both economic socialists and it really bothers you that your economic ideals
have been thoroughly disastrous. You both abhor the values that people
establish when given a degree of freedom in the matter, and instead want to
tell others what is best for them. You are both master planners who are
convinced that everyone else is an idiot or exploited stooge, and that the
solution to all the worlds problems are to place one of the two of you in
charge.
Dave B:
The idea that Socialism has "been thouroughly disasterous" is debateable at
best. Canada is considered to be a socialist country and it has the best
human rights record in the world. The list of nations that have kept their
promises and been the most generous in terms of foriegn are mostly socialist
countries. To construe this as some kind of tyranny or athoritarianism is
little more than parroting cold war propaganda and contradicts the Pirsigian
notion that socialism is morally superior to capitalism. (Besides that, our
scores on the political compass test clearly demonstrat that you are
actually more authoriarian than me.) And if the celebration of intellectual
values over social values makes me seem self-righteous, if the expression of
horror at the level of ignorance in the world makes me seem arrogant, then
so be it. But what I was actually referring to in complaining about the
export of corparate values is the McDisneyfication of the world. I mean, its
not as if the US is spending a whole lot of money or energy actually
educating people in economics. Its not about speading the "social knowledge
of capitalism", as you put it. Its about selling burgers, action movies and
junk like that.
RISKY:
If you have any actual economic argument, please make it and cite examples.
Otherwise, there is only one proven contender that countries and people are
freely looking at for economic advancement and that is variations on the
theme of good old fashioned, provincial, free enterprise.
Dave B:
One proven contender? Only if money is the only thing that matters. As I
understand it, the MOQ suggests the best solution would be some kind of
Dynamic socialism, that is to say an intellectually guided system that
recognizes the need for real economic freedom. The fact that most people see
the two as incompatatble is understandable, but its just not true.
RISKY:
As for your tacked-on argument that "provincial corporate values" lead to
extinction of plants and animals and languages, may I remind you that you
might want to support this allegation with a semblance of argument? For
example, please provide evidence that biodiversity or cultural diversity are
more threatened in free enterprise democracies than in theocracies or
socialist states or other totalitarian regimes. I think you will find that
biodiversity is protected much better in advanced western
capitalist/democracies than in any form of totalitarian state.
Dave B:
You present a false dilemma. Of course theocracies and totalitarian
governments would also be equally monolithic. They would wipe tend to wipe
out diversity insofar as they insist on the world-wide export of their
particular values, but you can't honestly believe that I was making a case
for either of them, can you? Again, the issue was blowback. Multinational
corporations show very little respect for the cultures where they export of
do business. What I'm talking about is the "billions and billion sold"
mentality, the mass production, interchangable parts, amoral nature of
Western technology. Its abut the sheer scale of it. Selling Mcburgers in
India, where cows are held sacred, would be like selling Korean hot dogs on
every corner here - hot dogs actually made of our little canine friends that
is.
RISKY:
As for the loss of language, I would like to ask what you are recommending?
Are you suggesting that people in New Guinea NOT be allowed to assimilate?
Are you recommending they be forced back out into the rain forest? Talk
about
imperialism. If people voluntarily give up their language, then what right
do
you have to stop them? (And I too believe that the loss of language/culture
is regretable.)
Dave B.
Allowed to assimilate? Voluntarily give up there language? I don't think so.
People are pressured to do so in order to survive and that's nothing to be
happy about. People are left with little choice. Forced to back into the
rain forest? I don't think so. More like forced into the city becasue the
forest has been turned into lumber, a living breathing dynamic ecosystem
reduced to a commodity. Its is the rampant economic activity that is
resulting in a loss of choices.
Do I hate my country? No. What I do hate is the hypocracy inherent in
foreign policies that contradict America's highest ideals. I am disturbed by
the loss of diversity inherent in this so called "new world order". I
disrespect that greedy "screw you cause I got mine mentality". I'm terrified
by the uncritical and thoughtless "my counrty right or wrong" crowd. I'm
outraged at the immorality of allowing social values to trump and trample
intellectual values. In the final analysis, all of this troubles me
precisely because I see my counrty's highest values as the greatest hope for
humanity and it breaks my heart to see this noble project sacrificed on the
alter of money. Squirrels gather nuts. Bears fatten up for the winter.
Wealth means nothing if it isn't used to advance human rights and democracy.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST