From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 01:09:30 MDT
Lee Corbin:
> > In my opinion the distrust is not anti-American. It is the distrust of
> > the disenfranchised and the disempowered.
>
> Perhaps a better solution would be to enfranchise the rest of the
> world. As the U.S. is the world's pre-eminent military power,
> why shouldn't everyone have an equal say in what is done with it?
I think your being ironic. How?
> Can you think of a logical reason why someone living, say, south
> of an imaginary line in the American west should not be able to
> vote, while someone living just a little bit to the north of it
> can vote?
Not a "logical" one. I guess I see it as essentially an historical
accident.
> > It is the same sort of sentiment that caused an earlier generation
> > of Americans to go to war to assert their rights not to be taxed
> > (governed) without being represented.
>
> Exactly. Just because they don't happen to be living in North
> America, why shouldn't a peasant in China or some extremely poor
> person in sub-Saharan Africa have an equal say?
> So the solution may just be for the U.S. to take over the world.
> Hold on: this is not as evil as it sounds; after all, the peasant
> in China and the starving man in Africa would *not* have to pay
> any taxes to support that military: they aren't rich enough, and
> fall below the poverty line.
It doesn't sound "evil" to me. Just, unfortunately, unrealistic. More
than military might is needed. I don't think American's want to feel
themselves merely to be the latest iteration of Rome, Greece, Egypt
or earlier military powers. I don't think they want to settle for a life
within fortress America either. Civilization, good quality of life, I
think, mean more than that to Americans too.
> Not only that, but they'd be entitled to their fair share of the pie,
> and a safety net provided by the (taxed) richer regions, like the
> U.S., Australia, and Europe.
>
> Then they wouldn't be either disenfranchised nor powerless,
> and their *feelings* would be so assuaged.
Do you think? I doubt it. *Feelings* of injustice are unlikely to be
replaced by any scheme I can think of. But the intensity of the feelings,
that I think, is something we (humanity including humanity's American
representatives especially as they are empowered) can maybe do
something about.
> > Personally I would have preferred President Bush to have
> > revoked the Charter before invading Iraq. In the long term
> > perhaps that would have harmed the US reputation less (the
> > US government reputation).
>
> You have to understand that there are two kinds of reputation
> involved here, Brett. One is the highly ephemeral dismissal
> of the United States that one is likely to hear at a European
> cocktail party or academic gathering ("barbarians", "hmmpt",
> "insufferable"), and the other is the real fear inspired in
> the hearts of terrorists and others who think about taking
> action against the West.
>
> You seem to be completely ignoring the latter. If enough people
> in the West were like you, then they'd elect a lot of leaders
> who would actually cause the ruffians of the world to despise
> the U.S. *more*.
I think you have miss-categorised me. I'm for the rule of law because
its part of the civilizing process. If the laws are wrong I'm for
changing them. If the treaties are not being honored - revoke them.
What I am not for is breaking laws and treaties and then denying that
they were broken and expecting the rest of the world to go along
with the fascade. It gets real hard to tell the good guys from the bad
guys when the so called good guys act like that.
>
> > > However, I think that the trouble with the U.S. leaving the U.N.
> > > would be that it would play right into the hands of America's
> > > enemies. "See! They're so out of control that they won't even
> > > talk anymore!"
> >
> > I think the problem is worse than that now Lee. It's not that the
> > US government won't talk that I think people outside of the states
> > fear, it is that they can't be trusted when they do. It's that
> > the US signature on a treaty may not be worth anything.
>
> How ironic that North Korea now wants a non-aggression pact with
> the U.S. Explain that!
Easy they are scared and desparate. Having a non-aggression treaty
would be better than nothing. Any sort of normalisation of relations
with the US is to be pursued as that will make it politically harder
for the US to take aggressive action.
> > I think this perception is now widespread amongst many of the
> > citizens of the developed countries of the West. I don't trust the
> > US government or the Australian government). I am sure many
> > intelligent US citizens don't trust it either.
>
> What is important is whether you can trust the U.S. to come
> down hard on malefactors like Saddam Hussein; believe me,
> when all is said and done, it's actions like that, not a lot
> of words, that matter.
But is it really? Let's say for argument sake that the same Presidential
administration takes a dislike to you for some reason. You don't have
Saddam's reputation. But what protects you from the extravagances
of government are the laws. If the US Government is above the law
in one set of circumstances how hard would it be to deprive you
of your constitutional rights? And us non-US cits don't even have
those rights.
>
> > > Yet there comes a time when, whether it's trade negotiations or
> > > human rights issues, Americans should indeed worry about what the
> > > rest of the world will do. Allowing the French and Russians to
> > > set the standard for human rights, or allowing a lot of America-
> > > haters to weaken international trade is not in anyone's real
> > > interest.
> >
> > No one nation can set the standards to the satisfaction of the
> > nationals of a majority of other nations. This is not essentially
> > an American problem. It's a representation problem.
>
> Well, I proposed a solution for that.
I think you tried. Its a tough problem though.
> > Without the UN any single powerful country disenfranchises the
> > citizens of the other countries. That is not a formula for
> > stability or dare I say "extropy".
>
> If it's *stability* you are after, things are much more
> stable now than ever before. One country practically
> never invades another anymore, and when a major country
> such as the U.S. does, it's after years and years of
> negotiation and indecisiveness.
Not in terms of international law. I don't think it was acceptable
to allow Iraq (or any other country to defy the UN or whatever
institution is duly authorised to act in the name of international
peace and security for as long as it did). That does reduce
the notion of collective security to a farce.
> P.S. Several paragraphs in the above were completely ironical.
I thought so. But I wasn't sure which ones.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 04 2003 - 01:20:45 MDT