Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: orojas@data.net.mx (Octavio Rojas Diaz)
> >
> >On 18/03/00, 07:32:12 a.m., "Zero Powers" <zero_powers@hotmail.com>
> >wrote regarding Re: American Imperialism?:
> >
> > > Right, that is *not* imperialism. Imperialism is extending a nation's
> > > authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of
> >economic and
> > > political hegemony over other nations. The US is not doing this. We
> >are
> > > basically acting as the referee in the world's international wrestling
> > > matches, and enforcing the rules when we notice low blows. No, no one
> > > appointed us as the referee, but we're the biggest kid on the block
> >and have
> > > assumed the role of shot caller by default. Maybe its a good thing,
> >maybe
> > > its not. But it is definitely *not* imperialism.
> >
> > > -Zero
> >
> >I sincerely wish the U.S., was doing what you say, but unfortunately
> >the U.S. is still a very imperialist and interventionist country.
>
> The problem with this discussion, perhaps, is carelessness with terminology.
> I agree 100% that the US is "interventionist." I don't think *anyone*
> denies that. But "interventionism" and "imperialism" are not
> interchangeable terms. If the thrust of your position is that the US should
> let the pendulum swing back a bit toward isolationism, I might not
> necessarily disagree (although I have not fully considered the issue as it
> has not specifically been raised in this thread). But regardless of whether
> or not you are a fan of US foreign policy the plain fact is that
> "imperialism" is an untrue, unfair and perjorative description of US policy.
Imperialism is using force to control the internal politics of foreign
nations, and to use force to lock out other industrial powers from
accessing the resources of those nations. The imperialist is
establishing itself as a monopoly customer for the resources, typically
raw or refined materials.
Many dissidents in foreign nations (typically socialists and/or
communists) decry our 'imperialism' when what they are complaining about
is their own government accepting foreign aid money in return for
support on US foreign policy objectives. All we are doing is applying
the principle of the welfare state to foreign policy.
Its the fault of those other countries that they can't seem to refuse
our money...
>
> >But unfortunately when you live in America, you don't get all the
> >information
> >about the things that happen in our regions of the world.
>
> You are not actually claiming that non-US citizens are more informed about
> US foreign policy than Americans, are you? If you are, I must beg to
> differ. Freedom of the press is one of our most cherished rights, and our
> press is not shy in the least about putting Government policy (foreign or
> otherwise) in a less than flattering light.
What he is saying is that US citizens only get the side of the story
that either the US gov't and/or the US media wants US citizens to get.
It happens a lot within the US enough to beleive that it happens at
least as frequently abroad. For example: The Spotted Owl. Anyone who is
on the inside of the logging industry in the Northwest US knows that the
Spotted Owl story was promulgated by Weyerhauser for the expressed
purpose of putting all of the independent logging and mill operations
out of business. Since Weyerhauser is the largest land owner in the
Northwest, it could afford to set aside habitat area here and there
wherever the owl was found. The independents, who owned less land, or
who operated on federal land, could not afford this and went under.
A foreign example: The CIA backed coup in Honduras in the 50's. The CIA
controlled the acces the reporters it shipped in had to the public and
events. Kept them supplied with booze and food, and got the stories it
wanted published in the US.
>
> >Speaking of my country (Mexico)
> >Although after the end of the usa/Mexico war when we lost more than
> >half our
> >territory the usa has never invaded or threatened us militarily,
> >they've forced
> >us to do what they think it's better using all sorts of resources or
> >excuses.
>
> This is called foreign policy. It's using your clout (political, economic,
> or military) to induce your neighbors to act in your best interest. *Every*
> nation does it (or tries, or wants to do it). But since the US has the most
> clout it is usually the most successful at having other nations comply with
> its wishes. Again, like it or no, this simply is not imperialism.
>
> >An example of this is the certification measure, here in Mexico every
> >time the
> >congress up there is deciding if we'll get or not certified. it
> >creates a lot of
> >tension and hurts our relations because it's an unilateral procedure
> >based on
> >U.S. Interests only and not ours, but they still implement it, because
> >it's
> >easier to use scape goats and pretend they are combating drug abuse by
> >being tough
> >on poor defenseless countries instead of looking wiser alternatives to
> >this senseless
> >drug war, and I could quote several other examples (operation
> >casablanca, etc.)
> >that the U.S. government does to force us their beliefs or systems.
Thats what you get when you become dependent on foreign aid money. If
you want to do your own thing, we have a right to do what we want with
our foreign aid money, including sending it to somebody else who is
willing to fall in line with our government's "need" to combat the drug
trade.
The fact is that the Mexican government IS a very corrupt government,
from top to bottom. Most governments have a for the most part honest
organization of public servants, where only the elected officials are
corrupt, and even then, typically those elected officials are only
willing to be corrupted by those interests they already support. The
Mexican government is corrupt through its entire structure. Nobody who
lives in Mexico can deny this, because they likely have gotten the
shakedown for money from police, from government officials whenever
permits are needed, etc. The fact that the Mexican oil industry is the
only oil producing nation that LOSES money on its oil operations ought
to tell you something.
> >
> >And well to avoid unnecessary rants, I'll just say is not very fair
> >for a country to
> >use it's enormous military or economic power to force other countries
> >do things they
> >don't like, and that in my opinion is... imperialism, call it neo
> >imperialism if you want
> >but it still doesn't make it any less worse.
Imperialism involves using force to get done what you want done, and
locking other industrial powers out of the resources in the nations you
have power over. Offering a country aid money in return for help in
fulfilling our own foreign policy needs is not imperialism.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:52 MDT