Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I am not convinced that "the problem is an incoherent set of goals and objectives when it comes to foreign policy". It seems to me that the goals and objectives of Western foreign policy are quite clear to the elites. However these goals and objectives are not communicated to the peoples of the West.
I agree that they're not communicating their goals and objectives very well (which is why support for interventionism is waning). However, I'm not entirely convinced that their goals and objectives are even all that clear to the elites. For one thing, it seems unlikely that all of the elites from the major powers would be able to agree on a uniform set of goals. Furthermore, even if they could agree on a common set of goals, there would be even more disagreement over how best to achieve said goals.
quote:
The armies of the US, the UK and France have been in constant action somewhere in the world more or less continuously since the end of the World War II. Any one of those 3 countries has invaded or intervened militarily in more countries than just about the rest of the world combined. Add Israel to the mix and you have a record of military belligerence and aggression unparalleled.
Very true. Of course, the US, UK, and France have long, close, and parallel histories with each other. Without Britain and France, the U.S. never would have come into existence, so it's only natural that we would eventually become close allies and share global hegemony with each other. But by the same token, we have been quite resistant at sharing this hegemony with anyone else.
Part of the problem is that there's also a general feeling that we should be responsible for the messes we make, so interventionism almost becomes a vicious cycle that just keeps repeating. Even those who might want to take the high road and exercise a more benign, less belligerent foreign policy are faced with a moral responsibility for what we've already done. Every hot spot in the world today can likely be traced back to some Western fuck-up decades ago. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, anywhere in Africa or Latin America - you name it. Of course, we can't just leave them alone; we feel a responsibility to go in and "fix" the problem, while creating more problems we'll have to "fix" later.
quote:
How many Muslim countries have Western armies operating in them? A lot. How many Western countries have Muslim armies operating in them? None.
It would probably be best if we pulled out of those countries, but the interventionists in the West would clearly be against that, particularly the ideological stalwarts in America.
quote:
Yet most people in the West are under the illusion that, as you say, "we are a bunch of nice guys who only want to spread freedom and democracy around the world". This claim falls apart when we recall the numbers of dictators and tyrants the West has buttressed and kept in office, often against the express will of the citizens of the country concerned. The West pretends to support human rights and democracy but in reality supports any tin pot tyrant who will do the West's bidding. Look at the list of tyrants and autocrats we keep in office in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, The Gulf States, Kuwait etc etc. Since when has Saudi Arabia been a bastion of human rights and democracy yet it is central to Western policy in the region.
OTOH regimes that refuse to tow the Western line are demonised. Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic Revolution yet somehow has been constructed as a threat to world peace.
So to me it seems more accuarate to say that the goals and objectives of Western policy are very clear to the elites, and they act consistently in line with those goals and objectives, while keeping their real goals and objectives hidden from their populations.
One reason I tend to wonder about their goals and objectives is because of so many failures and fuck-ups in the processes of maintaining Western hegemony and global interests. Whatever their real goals and objectives might be, the fact that they're losing is going to be more and more difficult to hide from their populations.
quote:
Sadly I am forced to agree that it is unlikely these people will have to answer war crimes charges in The Hague. It appears that the only people prosecuted for war crimes are those that have incurred the displeasure of the West - minor African and Balkan butchers mainly. In some European countries, there are warrants out for some Israeli politicians and military figures (arising out of their role in the murderous Cast Lead onslaught on Gaza) but so far these people have evaded arrest.
It would be a breakthrough for a magor Western or Israeli figure to be indicted on war crimes charges. They are terrified at the prospect. It has been reported that Abbas' strongest card in his negotiations with the Isaelis is to threaten to refer Israeli war crime cases to the ICC for investigation and prosecution.
A properly policed, fair system of international law is an essential for ongoing world peace. It saddens me that for as long as these criminals remain free from prosecution, nothing will force them to change their ways. So we can expect more calls for more interventions in the future.
It also requires for the nations in question to have a vigilant populace to be able to rein in their own governments. Sometimes, it's all we can do to police our own officials to follow our own national law. That's a tough job, in and of itself, and we've been known to fail at that from time to time. But we've had some successes, too. I don't think all is lost just yet, but we need to stop playing a losing game. We still have enough strength to be able to promote fairness, justice, and peace among the family of nations - if world peace and a stable global economy is what we really want. We can still be world leaders for positive and productive purposes. We can still promote democracy and freedom, which will ultimately be necessary for a reliable and stable system of international law anyway. (But that would mean we'd have to do it honestly, even if it means accepting the results of an election in another country which might go against our interests.)
But if we keep squandering our diminishing wealth and power on desperately trying to maintain a crumbling empire and an artificial hegemony, then we will be the cause of our own demise.
|
War criminal Blair calls for more wars . and war crimes - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread