Gregory Lightyear (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} lightyear) wrote,@ 2003-03-18 14:29:00 |
|
Re: Eric's short response
In a comment on the previous journal entry, E. wrote:
This is a response to that entry.
This isn't a show of force. Having the machinations of war surrounding the country was a show of force. This is a use of force. That clarification is necessary; a show of force does not violate the soverign rights of a nation, a use of force against a soverign nation does.
And in response, let me dig out some more facts:
And as for whether or not 9/11 is related, no links to terrorism have been proven. The best argument anyone can come up with is that someone might get their weapons from him and use them on America - but North Korea has always been the world's most shady and most reliable source of weaponry, and in almost all respects, represents a much greater danger because of that. Iraq is the easier target - not the better one. And it's only easier if it doesn't destabilize the region.
France believes, and possibly rightly so, that we are ignoring real terrorists threats today which continue to persist, and forgoing those to go after someone who can provably (at least historically) be dealt with through sanctions and an inspection regime. There are, in the eyes of many, a broad number of real hard targets out there which represent groups with not only the capacity for terrorism, but an interest in performing that terrorism against Western targets. As the West plays into the stereotype associated with it by terrorists, that of cultural domination, it increases the risk of activating those terrorists. In the eyes of France, America goes to war and France suffers the repercussions.
Iraq, unlike North Korea, has not been known to provide its weapons to others. Unlike Sudan, it has not harbored volumes of terrorist enclaves. Unlike Saudi Arabia, it has not financed them. Unlike Israel, it has not recently been accused of genocide, and unlike Palestine, is not sending suicide bombers into Iran, Turkey, or any of its other neighbors. Unlike al'Quaeda, it is not global in scope. Unlike terrorists, they have not directly attacked their neighbors or anyone else in a very long time.
All of these things infer that war may not be necessary; certainly the experts we (that's a We the International Community through our governments via our diplomats in the Security Council of the U.N.) asked to review the state of the country, the weapons inspectors and nuclear inspectors, did not find the threat so advanced, found much that was provided to them to be fabricated or false, and specifically requested more time, told the security council that their actions had represented true progress in removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
The response to the U.N.'s unwillingness to sanction a war this early has resulted in a U.S. decision to go to war without a resolution from the Security Council. Nor would it get the mandate from NATO - because Russia and France, and then Germany, would reject such a mandate. The U.S., unable to get permission to ignore the soverign power of Iraq, has decided to ignore the soverign powers of its partner countries in these organisations. The repercussions have yet to be seen; but it represents a large setback in the ability of the U.S. to use diplomacy to solve its problems, making it ever more reliant on war as a mechanism with which to solve disputes; a mechanism it will need to solve the North Korean issue now rising.
But the idea of running around installing democratic societies in the Middle East is a wider issue than just terrorism, or the sponsoring thereof (of which, by the way, there is no proof of in the case of Iraq to date). Saudi Arabia has some of the highest sponsorship rates of terrorism - and like most Middle Eastern countries, doesn't have anything like a democracy in place. The removal of 'despots' from power is a slippery slope; a slope which one might argue could even be navigated well with careful diplomacy - diplomacy which the current U.S. Government has shown no ability to provide.
The world is full of dictators and non-democratic regimes. Electoral democracies represented 120 countries out of 192 existing countries in 2000, constituting 58.2% of the world's population. At the same time, true 'liberal' democracies, countries which were regarded by Freedom House as having been free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are only 85 in number, and represent only 38% of the global population.
In other words - many of those democracies don't provide their peoples with freedom; and 85 out of 192 countries lack the rights you cherish today. 1 country out of the 192 in 2000 cannot provide a replacement for the remaining 68 countries which do not operate in a democracy, nor enforce legal reform on the 107 countries which do not provide 'freedom'. Not even the 58.2% with a democracy could be guaranteed to succeed in enforcing it on the remaining 41.8% of the world's population. When put in this context, diplomacy seems to be the only answer if we're all meant to get along on this planet.
America and the countries of Europe do not reflect the same type of governments as those operated around the world; previous foreign policy was dedicated to the idea that free trade agreements and inclusion in the world community would loosen the hold of those governments and provide a way for those rights to be spread throughout those governments.
This 'plan', that of replacement through war for those deemed along the 'axis of evil' is a very different policy. More importantly, this policy is not and cannot be applied to all countries named in the 'axis of evil'. Bush is single-handedly responsible for destabilizing North Korea, and endangering the whole of the stability of the tiger economies, who operated primarily on the belief that improvements in trade and communications would result in long-term change for the countries which lacked those freedoms. One man destabilized that balance, which took many years to construct, through one sentence. One careless inclusion.
Democracy, in the last few hundred years, have a pretty bleak record of creating war, strife, condoning executions, installing dictators, and committing general mayhem. Their record is NOT clean. And yet, towards their own peoples, Democracy tied to a free market economy has proven an effective rule. But the history of mankind is littered with the decisions of governments to wage war on others to usurp or destroy the soverignty of a nation; Britain has fought more than a handful.
Name one other country in the Middle East that has a Democracy in the image of America, or even anything in Europe, though. Even Israel is not truly in that class - religion still holds strong sway, enshrined in law and lacking equal rights under freedom of religion. Will Israel be changed from outside? Will we replace the King of Jordan? Is Sudan next, or Egypt? All are full of human rights abuses, all are replete with a broad range of dictatorial and genocidal behavior. Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt have all previously been involved in aggresive war with Israel, with the results you see before you today.
And as for being 'on board' for the next stop in this 'caravan of caring', hopping from country to country and installing peaceful democracies out of thin air? No, the next stop on this list will not be Iran. It will not be North Korea. Any ideas otherwise are folly, one would hope - the Middle East will not allow gradual, selective replacement of their governmental systems, which are not today democratic, by a U.S. military force; nor will the Tiger economies, well within the destructive reach of North Korea, allow the current warmongering result in considerable destructive force that could be unleashed upon the peacable democratic of South Korea anytime soon. That's not pragmatism, you're offering - it's death. And that's from someone who knows full well that North Korea is probably the biggest arms dealer, other than the U.S., and Britain, and France, world-wide.
What you are doing is exactly what everyone accuses Americans of around the world: forcing your vision of the world onto the world. You're living up the very stereotype that made America a target for al'Qaeda terrorism in the first place. Ask any terrorist why he hates the U.S., and he'll list Israel. America gave us the concepts of freedom and democracy; it also gave us Nike's abuse of third-world workers, the monetary strangulation of the World Bank, and pushed globalization down the throats of a broad range of cultures and countries.
What previous policies were all about was getting everyone to adopt those characteristics by showing them its benefits; what current policies are all about is enforcing a very American ideal onto a very foreign sovereign nation; a policy that, the last time it was used by Germany, led to World War II.
What you are saying is the antithesis of what a democracy means for those outside of that democracy; these people are not being given a choice by their ruling parties, and next, they'll not be given a choice by the U.S. and U.K., except to have their choice forced on them after a destructive war and death; that blood, you'll find, sticks to that flag we all pledged our allegiance to, and the blood could take another 50 years to wash out. If America cannot show that it respects the soverign rights of other nations, it's in breach of everything the U.N. was created to prevent - and everything you're saying is just evidence of that slippery slope being present.
Today, we stand at the edge of what could be a very large cliff; and the fate and lives of many rests on the shoulders of those who make the decision of whether to step over that edge.
In a comment on the previous journal entry, E. wrote:
The pertient facts remain:Therefore, we are using force.
- It is clear that weapons of mass destruction are a goal of his.
- It is clear he will not comply unless convinced by a show of force.
- France would not let us try impressing him with unified force, so that route is dead.
This is a response to that entry.
This isn't a show of force. Having the machinations of war surrounding the country was a show of force. This is a use of force. That clarification is necessary; a show of force does not violate the soverign rights of a nation, a use of force against a soverign nation does.
And in response, let me dig out some more facts:
- The weapons inspections during the 1990s destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the whole of the Gulf War.
- A great many terrorist regimes remain supported under current U.S. policy - this is a 'war on some terrorists', like the 'war on some drugs'.
- The history of western 'democracy', as put, is responsible for some woeful acts of murder and terrorism of its own; hence, his being in power in the first place.
- The majority of the world's people are not represented by American ideals of freedom.
- Many of those countries do not have a democracy.
- Many of those countries do have the ability to inflict serious damage on their neighbors and enemies; those powers are kept in check today because of diplomacy, and often through direct intervention in the U.N. and other, regional worldwide diplomatic bodies.
- The neighbors of the country currently in question, those most likely to receive direct attack, do not want that war.
- The next nearest neighbors, namely Europe, is for the most part resolutely against a war on both popular and governmental levels.
And as for whether or not 9/11 is related, no links to terrorism have been proven. The best argument anyone can come up with is that someone might get their weapons from him and use them on America - but North Korea has always been the world's most shady and most reliable source of weaponry, and in almost all respects, represents a much greater danger because of that. Iraq is the easier target - not the better one. And it's only easier if it doesn't destabilize the region.
France believes, and possibly rightly so, that we are ignoring real terrorists threats today which continue to persist, and forgoing those to go after someone who can provably (at least historically) be dealt with through sanctions and an inspection regime. There are, in the eyes of many, a broad number of real hard targets out there which represent groups with not only the capacity for terrorism, but an interest in performing that terrorism against Western targets. As the West plays into the stereotype associated with it by terrorists, that of cultural domination, it increases the risk of activating those terrorists. In the eyes of France, America goes to war and France suffers the repercussions.
Iraq, unlike North Korea, has not been known to provide its weapons to others. Unlike Sudan, it has not harbored volumes of terrorist enclaves. Unlike Saudi Arabia, it has not financed them. Unlike Israel, it has not recently been accused of genocide, and unlike Palestine, is not sending suicide bombers into Iran, Turkey, or any of its other neighbors. Unlike al'Quaeda, it is not global in scope. Unlike terrorists, they have not directly attacked their neighbors or anyone else in a very long time.
All of these things infer that war may not be necessary; certainly the experts we (that's a We the International Community through our governments via our diplomats in the Security Council of the U.N.) asked to review the state of the country, the weapons inspectors and nuclear inspectors, did not find the threat so advanced, found much that was provided to them to be fabricated or false, and specifically requested more time, told the security council that their actions had represented true progress in removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
The response to the U.N.'s unwillingness to sanction a war this early has resulted in a U.S. decision to go to war without a resolution from the Security Council. Nor would it get the mandate from NATO - because Russia and France, and then Germany, would reject such a mandate. The U.S., unable to get permission to ignore the soverign power of Iraq, has decided to ignore the soverign powers of its partner countries in these organisations. The repercussions have yet to be seen; but it represents a large setback in the ability of the U.S. to use diplomacy to solve its problems, making it ever more reliant on war as a mechanism with which to solve disputes; a mechanism it will need to solve the North Korean issue now rising.
But the idea of running around installing democratic societies in the Middle East is a wider issue than just terrorism, or the sponsoring thereof (of which, by the way, there is no proof of in the case of Iraq to date). Saudi Arabia has some of the highest sponsorship rates of terrorism - and like most Middle Eastern countries, doesn't have anything like a democracy in place. The removal of 'despots' from power is a slippery slope; a slope which one might argue could even be navigated well with careful diplomacy - diplomacy which the current U.S. Government has shown no ability to provide.
The world is full of dictators and non-democratic regimes. Electoral democracies represented 120 countries out of 192 existing countries in 2000, constituting 58.2% of the world's population. At the same time, true 'liberal' democracies, countries which were regarded by Freedom House as having been free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are only 85 in number, and represent only 38% of the global population.
In other words - many of those democracies don't provide their peoples with freedom; and 85 out of 192 countries lack the rights you cherish today. 1 country out of the 192 in 2000 cannot provide a replacement for the remaining 68 countries which do not operate in a democracy, nor enforce legal reform on the 107 countries which do not provide 'freedom'. Not even the 58.2% with a democracy could be guaranteed to succeed in enforcing it on the remaining 41.8% of the world's population. When put in this context, diplomacy seems to be the only answer if we're all meant to get along on this planet.
America and the countries of Europe do not reflect the same type of governments as those operated around the world; previous foreign policy was dedicated to the idea that free trade agreements and inclusion in the world community would loosen the hold of those governments and provide a way for those rights to be spread throughout those governments.
This 'plan', that of replacement through war for those deemed along the 'axis of evil' is a very different policy. More importantly, this policy is not and cannot be applied to all countries named in the 'axis of evil'. Bush is single-handedly responsible for destabilizing North Korea, and endangering the whole of the stability of the tiger economies, who operated primarily on the belief that improvements in trade and communications would result in long-term change for the countries which lacked those freedoms. One man destabilized that balance, which took many years to construct, through one sentence. One careless inclusion.
Democracy, in the last few hundred years, have a pretty bleak record of creating war, strife, condoning executions, installing dictators, and committing general mayhem. Their record is NOT clean. And yet, towards their own peoples, Democracy tied to a free market economy has proven an effective rule. But the history of mankind is littered with the decisions of governments to wage war on others to usurp or destroy the soverignty of a nation; Britain has fought more than a handful.
Name one other country in the Middle East that has a Democracy in the image of America, or even anything in Europe, though. Even Israel is not truly in that class - religion still holds strong sway, enshrined in law and lacking equal rights under freedom of religion. Will Israel be changed from outside? Will we replace the King of Jordan? Is Sudan next, or Egypt? All are full of human rights abuses, all are replete with a broad range of dictatorial and genocidal behavior. Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt have all previously been involved in aggresive war with Israel, with the results you see before you today.
And as for being 'on board' for the next stop in this 'caravan of caring', hopping from country to country and installing peaceful democracies out of thin air? No, the next stop on this list will not be Iran. It will not be North Korea. Any ideas otherwise are folly, one would hope - the Middle East will not allow gradual, selective replacement of their governmental systems, which are not today democratic, by a U.S. military force; nor will the Tiger economies, well within the destructive reach of North Korea, allow the current warmongering result in considerable destructive force that could be unleashed upon the peacable democratic of South Korea anytime soon. That's not pragmatism, you're offering - it's death. And that's from someone who knows full well that North Korea is probably the biggest arms dealer, other than the U.S., and Britain, and France, world-wide.
What you are doing is exactly what everyone accuses Americans of around the world: forcing your vision of the world onto the world. You're living up the very stereotype that made America a target for al'Qaeda terrorism in the first place. Ask any terrorist why he hates the U.S., and he'll list Israel. America gave us the concepts of freedom and democracy; it also gave us Nike's abuse of third-world workers, the monetary strangulation of the World Bank, and pushed globalization down the throats of a broad range of cultures and countries.
What previous policies were all about was getting everyone to adopt those characteristics by showing them its benefits; what current policies are all about is enforcing a very American ideal onto a very foreign sovereign nation; a policy that, the last time it was used by Germany, led to World War II.
What you are saying is the antithesis of what a democracy means for those outside of that democracy; these people are not being given a choice by their ruling parties, and next, they'll not be given a choice by the U.S. and U.K., except to have their choice forced on them after a destructive war and death; that blood, you'll find, sticks to that flag we all pledged our allegiance to, and the blood could take another 50 years to wash out. If America cannot show that it respects the soverign rights of other nations, it's in breach of everything the U.N. was created to prevent - and everything you're saying is just evidence of that slippery slope being present.
Today, we stand at the edge of what could be a very large cliff; and the fate and lives of many rests on the shoulders of those who make the decision of whether to step over that edge.
