Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
americans involved in 'war crimes'
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by JustHalf
Well, my sentence was merely a reduction of yours from two clauses to one. It means exactly the same as yours with regards to the US abiding by international law.
Well I would say that I probably know the meaning of my sentence better than you. Your interpretation of its meaning not withstanding, if I wanted to be as pedantic as you about it, I could point out that you altered the meaning of the sentence in at least one way by changing my "abide by" (which means to comply with) to an "abide with" which actually means to tolerate or wait patiently for. I would say that IF I wanted to nit pick
, but I don't so I say only this:
Your post only serves to illustrate my point about your focusing on this kind or irrelevance and not engaging in informed debate.
Keep on truckin'0 -
I'd just like to point a few things out here. To begin with, let me make it clear that I as an American am abhorrent of some of my government's policies-especially the recent ICC/UN peacekeeping policies- I make no attempt to justify them. However, I do feel I need to set the record straight regarding a few points(in a long post) that have been made, and to play the devil's advocate a little :P
Originally posted by Shinji
You can't break an international law you refuse to recognise. However, I think it's fair to say that the Yanks think they're playing a totally different ball game to the rest of us in this respect.
There is a politically valid reason that our government chooses to 'play a different ball-game'. It largely revolves around the fact that Europe as a collective, lacks the will to make difficult decisions economically as well as politically- but in no area is this more apparent than when military solutions are necessary. Whenever peace-keeping initiatives are necessary on European soil, the US is inevitably the nation pledging the largest force. The reason that our government inevitably takes the lead in both the UN Security council, and in NATO is that the other member nations simply don't bring enough to the table. Many in the US legislature (perhaps rightly) feel that such a large investment of tax-payer's money, and the immeasurable investment of American soldiers giving their lives for a peace settled far from their shores- is not an investment worth making.
What gives the US a significant edge at the negotiating table is not just military force, but the political will to use it. This is why a purely European-enforced peace initiative has not been successful anywhere in Europe- from the once-troubled Balkans/Kosovo, to the Northern Ireland settlement, to the still-troubled Kurds in Turkey. Several citizens look critically at a UN security council, where out of the 5 permanent members, only two (the US and GB) are even moderatlely concerned with peacekeeping troop deployments, the US more so than any of the other nations. China takes no part in peacekeeping, Russia like-wise, France is very careful of overcomitting, as indeed are the UK though to a lesser extent. Little wonder then that there is frustration on our side of the Atlantic when complaints are made by Europeans about our unwillingness to listen. Well...if Europe is unwilling to re-arm and bring its share to the table, it shouldn't moan and wheedle about not getting an equal say.
About the specific manner of withdrawal, or the threat of SFOR withdrawal I am more skeptical. While I agree that it is wrong to use these peace-keeping initiatives in a threatening fashion, I'm not entirely certain that I want to pay taxes to maintain forces in Europe, immunity or no immunity. This is why the current administration took this action, because an overwhelming majority of public opinion disagrees with the very idea of American lives being risked for European peace. Especially when the likely aftermath of such a peace will throw up problems that liberals critical of the action (while unable to concoct an alternative solution practically viable) will point to in a cynical and unproductive fashion. That isn't necessarily my view, just that of the majority of my countrymen. The view has been recently enforced in some quarters with Europe's march towards the hard right- something that makes the electorate uneasy, particularly about Middle Eastern policy.
They refuse to recognise the ICC...
The US has a consistent and unashamedly isolationist foreign policy. I for one am firmly of the belief that ratification of the ICC is a mistake, and not just for the US or the reasons our government issued. Ad hoc courts are not only more able to address the issues, but conform to the ethical and legal standards of a region far more effectively than a unified criminal system could. The ICC, like communism, is a good idea in principle, but riddled with problems when practical details are exposed. For example, if an international criminal court exists, on what basis would it charge or subpoena individuals or groups? Would there for example, be a penal code? As it stands, these critical questions are left hanging. Ad hoc courts allow for the deliberation prior to proceedings to be agreed by prosecution and defence, and for a suitably unbiased bench to be drawn up.
It is indisuptable that each and every nation has different values regarding legal procedure. In Italy & Korea, judges are trained in a pure establishment. In the Commonwealth and the US, they are selected from advocates. Some states have trials by jury, some do not, and some have both. Varying degrees of mitigation are permitted in different states- if a universal standard is to be applied, these issues would dog the validity of any judgement the court could pass down. Finally, the reason I am positive it will never work is that an effective system of appeal has NOT been designed. That for me, is the last strand of judicial process being hung out to dry, and the final nail in the ICC's coffin.
It is also to be noted that just because you happen to ratify a treaty, it is no guarantee of it being followed. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has been signed by Russia and China, yet recent IAEA reports seem to disclose (unsuprisingly) that these two nations are world leaders in both state-sanctioned, and illegitimate proliferation. That issue to me is far more important the the improbably creation of a viable ICC- it represents a threat to global security- while the ICC is far, far away from being a solution to any of the world's troubles. The ratification of Kyoto doesn't vex me for the simple reason that CO2 emissions have little or nothing to do with overall climate change. Also, our government bucked global opinion on the ABM treaty, and was met with positive results- the largest reductions in nuclear arms the world has ever seen.
As for ignoring the UN Security council and vetoing, I can't think of a single permanent member that hasn't done this in critical situations as it suits them. Examples: Russia wrt Chechnya, Cuba, Yemen, Dagestan, NPT arrangments, 4PT signings, the list goes on. France wrt Algeria, Vietnam, Senegal, not to mention nuclear testing in their colonies. Britain regarding the Falklands, Guyana, the Gulf War and colonial land rights in many an African nation. China wrt Tibet, Taiwan, Fa-Lun Gong, and the Nansha islands disupte. These may be less publicized, but are no less significant than US interventions. The reason they are less publicized is that the US is willing to be engaged about its shortcomings, while the other Sec Council nations are not.
However the US have as rich history of refusing to recognize international law (the US having the highest veto counts on UN resolutions followed closely by Israel) they also have a history of ignoring UN resolutions when it doesn't suit US interests and we are all aware of their blatantly illegal acts in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and virtually every country in the continental Americas.
It's always suprised me how selective peoples' memories can be, especially concerning events in mainland Europe. No one denies that US actions described were illegal or deplorable, or both. Yet we were hardly the only ones to commit such acts. France acted abhorently in Algeria in the early 1960s, and has continued a policy of disruption and regime-change there ever since. China's human rights and external affairs records speak for themselves, particularly regarding Taiwan, Tibet, border disputes, and East Asian policy. But what rankles most with me is the manner in which Europeans have ignored the extent of Russian atrocities in their own back yard. The atrocities in Chechnya and Dagestan continue still, Grozny and Kralinzow, once thriving townships in Central Russia totally destroyed, people scattered, homeless, millions made refugees. To say nothing of the brinkmanship exhibited during the Cuban missile crisis, support of seperatists across Africa/the Middle East, even destabilizing South Asia. Far from pressuring Russia to deal with these fundamental issues of the present and history, the EU has wooed them shamelessly, doubtless hopeful of the market prospects the corrupt Russian government along with the packages the Russian mafia and dolgarukhy bring with them. Rather than soley criticizing the manner in which the United States conducts its affairs, perhaps a little more effort should be made to concentrate on solving serious troubles closer to home. The Soviet Union created just as many problems as the US in terms of arming seperatists and regime-change, that was a sign of the times. The Cold war is something neither side should be proud of- it should however be noted that US-allied governments often didn't object at the time of atrocity, saving such recriminations for 10-15 years down the line. Hardly consistent morally speaking, and impractical policy-wise.
If Europe as a whole wants a collective say in matters- they first need to formulate a common doctrine specific enough to be taken seriously. Next, they need to rearm in an intelligent and coordinated fashion if they are to have a say in the issues that shape this century. Last, and most importantly, they need to show the world that they are capable of acting decisively when collective political or military action is required. The more of these initiatives are in place, the more seriously the US will take European complaints the next time around.
Just a few thoughts there, respond to them how you will
Occy0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
I
Just a few thoughts there, respond to them how you will
Occy
OK wow, Occy that is a brilliant post, and I welcome the viewpoint of a US citizen in this thread, especially such a well thought out view.
However, (there is always a however isn't there!?
) I feel duty bound to point out some additional detail on some of the points.This is why a purely European-enforced peace initiative has not been successful anywhere in Europe- from the once-troubled Balkans/Kosovo, to the Northern Ireland settlement, to the still-troubled Kurds in Turkey.
With regard to Turkey and their treatment of the Kurds, I think it should pointed out that the US has a tentacle in this. The attrocities against the Kurds peaked during the mid 90's, coincidentally around the same time that Turkey became the largest single importer of US military hardware, a whoping 80% of its arsenal (much of which was used against Kurdish civilians) was supplied by the US. Even after human rights groups exposed the use of US jets to bomb Kurdish villages, the arms continued to flow.
As for the Balkans, the US (as well as all the other western governments), ignored the non-violant resistance of the Kosovars to the rescindence of their autonomy refusing to give any real support and in fact excluding Kosovo Albanian representatives from the negotiation of the Dayton accords. Only when the KLA began an armed resistance followed by the escalation of the cycle of violence was there intervention by western governments. Intervention that only increased on a massive scale the Serbian atrocities.
Northern Ireland, there is a constant US intervention in the Northern Ireland conflict, namely massive financial support for the IRA stretching back decades. However since I have nothing to support official US government involvement I'll move on.
The US has a consistent and unashamedly isolationist foreign policy.
Well I guess if you believe the propaganda this is true, if you delve any deeper it's clearly untrue. At the end of WWII the US saw its chance to become the dominant world power and at once began planning the implementation of this goal. Beginning with the subversion of the first free elections in Italy (which looked like going in favor of the hugely popular communist resistance). Followed by the instalation of key Nazi personnel and colaborators in governments around Europe. The US shaped the political landscape of post-war Europe to meet its own ends and as such is at least partly culpable for the current state of Europe.
Since then it has interfered in the affairs of virtually every state in Central/South America and Cuba Haiti etc. that has attempted any kind of Social reform as it may have negative effect on US business interests.
None of which is very isolationist, at least IMHO.
OK, its late now and I just ca't type anymore, I'll come back to this tomorrow .. I guess I just don't have your stamina Occy 0 -
Originally posted by GerK
With regard to Turkey and their treatment of the Kurds, I think it should pointed out that the US has a tentacle in this. The attrocities against the Kurds peaked during the mid 90's, coincidentally around the same time that Turkey became the largest single importer of US military hardware, a whoping 80% of its arsenal (much of which was used against Kurdish civilians) was supplied by the US. Even after human rights groups exposed the use of US jets to bomb Kurdish villages, the arms continued to flow.
The US did have a tentacle in it, as did every other nation in NATO. It was incredibly important at the time, for NATO to be seen as inclusive of Turkey along with all its political baggage, especially because of the Middle East issue. As such, not only were we willing to support them in NATO, but practically all NATO members were eager to ignore human rights issues as long as they would be brought into line at some stage in the future. Seville 1991 provides the proof for this, human rights groups had warned about the plight of Kurds and the agendas surrounding Kurdistan, but executive branches of government have rarely responded well to NGO reports that they haven't commissioned themselves.
While we're on the subject of weapons though GerK, which company would you say has had the greatest success regarding patent/weapon sales? Because it isn't an American company, but a little Russian concern by the name of Automvat Kalashnikov. The AK is probably the most sold, traded, modified, talked about and used weapon on the planet, and the one which has caused the most grief. Yet all I seem to read about in my daily socialist chronicle are Western arms sales- that's a bit unbalanced wouldn't you say?
As for the Balkans, the US (as well as all the other western governments), ignored the non-violant resistance of the Kosovars to the rescindence of their autonomy refusing to give any real support and in fact excluding Kosovo Albanian representatives from the negotiation of the Dayton accords. Only when the KLA began an armed resistance followed by the escalation of the cycle of violence was there intervention by western governments. Intervention that only increased on a massive scale the Serbian atrocities.
At that stage, most of the western world was willing to give democracy in Yugoslavia a chance to sort these problems out. Intervention is all well and good, but it needs to be a fairly stark and internally insoluble problem before NATO should intervene- even hardliners agree on that. Only when the democratic process in Serbia failed Kosovar Albanian fundamentally at the executive enforcement level did it become clear that only an imposed solution would be workable.
Northern Ireland, there is a constant US intervention in the Northern Ireland conflict, namely massive financial support for the IRA stretching back decades. However since I have nothing to support official US government involvement I'll move on.
That's a fairly radical accusation- no one questions that private money flows from the US to Irish republicans in Northern Ireland, but government involvement? That would be neither in our interest nor practicable. Private money we turn a blind eye to, and that's unacceptable- but logistical support on the ground in the Republic I would wager, is of far more worth to the republican movement than cash: terrorist groups can always find willing supporters and means of raising money- constraints of legality and property rarely tie their hands :P The problem is hardly the money, it's the entire attitude in establishing a peace, sometimes only an imposed solution will even have a chance of sticking.
The only official involvement of our government that I'm aware of is in aiding a settlement, something we were successful in doing under the Clinton administration. There are issues to be ironed out, but the problem was addressed far more efficiently with US envoys at the table than without- influence can be used for good as well as selfish ends- sometimes the two even coincide.
Since then it has interfered in the affairs of virtually every state in Central/South America and Cuba Haiti etc. that has attempted any kind of Social reform as it may have negative effect on US business interests.
None of which is very isolationist, at least IMHO.
As I said, both the Soviet Union and the US intervened in various fashions, polarizing global alliances to an extent not seen since the first world war. There is a marked difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. No one can argue that the Soviet Union has pursued an isolationist foreign policy regarding trade, aid, peacekeeping or the like...but to say they were also non-interventionist misses the mark by some way. The same is true of different aspects of US policy- although I would argue that we are more ready and able to be engaged on issues than are the Russians.
I guess I just don't have your stamina Occy
Can't believe everything you hear
Occy0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sure, but again, its a case of Good and Bad. The west saw the US as the good guy, and the Soviets as the Big Bad. You hear about Soviet atrocities, and its "so what". It just proves the US was right to oppose them, and that they were indeed as Bad as we said. When you hear that the US was in the same ballpark in terms of its actions, its more surprising. The Good Guy was using the same dirty tactics as the Big Bad? surely not? How could they be the good guy? If their actions were as reprehensible, then exactly what was so bad about the Soviets?
I don't believe in the black & white theory of blame. I have faith that history will reflect that the US's actions, however atrocious in parts, paled in comparison with the far-reaching effects of what the Soviet Union and its sattelite states perpetuated. A clear picture cannot be obtained via the "West's" point of view- there was a way to find one though. The Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM, viewed both the US +European Allies, and the USSR + sattelite states with suspicion. However, it is clear that they favoured trade, dialogue, engagement, and discussions with the NATO bloc- since the USSR closeted itself with Cuba, China, and the DPRK more often than not. As I see it, it confirms my faith in the fact that there are shades of "wrongdoing" in policy- and that the darker shades do not sit upon our shoulders. Perhaps history will prove me wrong, but the situation resting as it is, I'm content with that analysis.
I can't remember the last time a moral obligation was the crux of a foreign policy strategy. Or at least, a successful strategy- all I need to do is point a fat, overfed finger at the starving continent of Africa. It is indisputable that aid could be spared, but not only Western, but Eastern bloc powers. The fact that it was morally compelling alone, did nothing to motivate them. EVEN TODAY it is a sore point- world leaders are distrustful of African leaders, and African leaders are mired in a pit of their predecessors' digging.What I am saying is that as the self-appointed bastion of the free-world, there is a moral obligation on the US to lead by example.
The point is, if a moral obligation exists for us to lead by example, that isn't good enough. There needs to be a firm incentive to hand to the electorate- and one more substantial than "a nice warm feeling inside". It's heartless I know- and no one feels it more than me, having done charity work- but the general public is rarely swayed by sob stories. What holds European leaders back from action on the same scale is capability. Political balance certainly isn't lacking- the far right is more powerful in Europe than it has ever been in the US in terms of seats. The US no longer has a foreign policy stick, so we need a carrot.
It is encumbant on the US to uphold the values that it tries to get the rest of the world to hold up to. Sure, the US would like that to be US policy, but when it has to be International policy, then the US should suck it in, and set the example. If not, then any criticism of others is nothing more than posturing. Similarly, claims that "we are not the only guilty ones" are delf-defeating.
The US is not the only "guilty" nation. However, this implicitly contains an admission that the US is a guilty party. This kinda questions the superiority of the moral platform the US preaches to the world from.
jc
It certainly does- but as I've said, I have faith that the moral platform is superior in a proportionate fashion. And to think of it in terms of guilt is misleading I feel- guilt is an individual concept. I don't believe in the idea of "collective guilt" or "collective innocence" as jurisprudence concepts. As for the US reaching compromises on international disputes- as long as we wield the largest carrots(investment opportunity, free trade, etc) and the largest sticks (withdrawal of said investment opportunities, military power)- there will never be a need for us to lend an ear to International Policy. If nations pursued the more rewarding approach of engaging our concerns (instead of presenting us with a fait accompli) then more could be achieved. The alternative is for Europe to re-arm, organize a better common trading policy, shore up their currency market(s), and meet us as first among equals, as opposed to the poor cousin.
Foreign policy criticism our government directs would usually not amount to posturing(although sometimes for the sake of humility I wish it did) - because we have a more powerful say than any nation or bloc currently in existence. That may be unfortunate for geopolitics as a subject, but the harsh reality is that all that is really incumbent upon our government is to act directly in the best interests of our citizens. Europe hasn't pursued such a devoted line because political thinking there is a good deal more distanced from public opinion. That's a story for another day, but it creates a whole new set of problems for the way relationships are defined. But until a relationship of equity is established, there is little use directing moral standards towards a political establishment that isn't in accordance with public opinion or law. "Ethical directives are best pursued within a framework of substantive gain"- I believe it was Karl Marx who wrote those immortal words. Ironic somewhat, that it is the policy which shapes the fate of modern western government.
Thus ends the long rebuttal of death
Occy0 -
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus An interesting fact is that several western governments have contracted image consultants to aid with tourism, aid projection, even defence recruitment- just about every aspect of civil PR that concerns foreign policy in fact. That you point to the US example is testimony to the kind of singular media scrutiny we subject ourselves to as a superpower.
"We are subjected to", not "we subject ourselves to", unless you wish to admit or claim that the US controls the international media
My point is not that the US is alone in this, but rather that the US has a reason for doing this. Why change from the established norms and use marketing techniques and knowhow to modify the image of your nation abroad? Well, the only two reasons I can think of are a) You have a problem with your overseas image, and b) You want to improve your overseas image because it is of benefit to you to do so. Really, they're the same point, arent they.
So - whether the US is alone in doing this or not is not the issue. The issue is that the US has done this in a (so far failed) attempt to alleviate this negative image that they have abroad.Their foreign policy attitude is typically Republican, but not nearly as bad as Reagan's or Bush Senior's.
The possibility of back to war with Iraq, the resurrection of Son Of Star Wars. Ths isnt as bad as Ronnie or Dubya senior? It reads like a combination of the two at the moment.
OK - when you take the extra-ordinary out, his handling of "standard" foreign policy is probably better, I grant you that. However, from outside the US, he is not making a mark as being particularly adroit at these things.I'm optimistic mainly because of the way he handled 9/11- rarely has a western leader in recent history been faced with such a difficult and traumatic event as this. Or handled it as well.
Im still not convinced he did handle it all that well :
Al Qaeda has not been smashed, despite the promises that this is what the war in Afghanistan has been about.
The war in Afghanistan is not over, despite our being told months ago that it was all but finished, and that it was the most efficient, cost-effective war ever. Funnily - the Russians had an easy time of it in Afghanistan for the first year or three as well. I'm not doom-prophecying here, I'm just saying that it is far from over.
Add to that the internationally questioned issues of human rights concerning the Gitmo "detainees" (cant call them prisoners, cause prisoners would have more rights).
But enough of that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is more critical than yours in this situation.
Lets look honestly at why this is so.
You are not a Republican. Therefore, while you have a certain allegiance to your nation, you have no direct allegiance to your nation's leader at the moment. If anything, you will be critical of him when his policies differ from those you fundamentally believe in, and supportive of his decisions when they match your beliefs. I know this to be true - I've seen you post on both sides - you are not a rabid "if its not my party its wrong" believer
I'm sure, however, that you wouldnt expect a Republican to sit down and agree with you when you calmly explain why his beliefs are wrong, and yours are right regarding the political direction the nation should take.
But, you are an American. No offense, but this automatically disqualifies you from trying to argue why non-American perception of the US is wrong. In the same way that you wouldnt expect a Republican to agree with your beliefs, you shouldnt expect a non-American to agree with the American perception of America.
To me, as a non-American, the USA promotes itself shamelessly to the entire world as the great bastion of freedom, liberty, deomcracy, blah blah blah. The world no longer swallows this, which has led to an increasing image problem, which in turn has led to the US trying to market "Brand USA" as mentioned before.
Even if America really does stand for freedom, liberty, democracy, etc. and so on and so forth, that is not the issue. The issue is that the image you project abroad does not support the image you promote abroad...if you see what I mean.
This dichotomy is essentially what underlies much of the US-bsahing sentiment. Not all, but much of it. Telling us that we've got the US all wrong, or that we dont understand it, or that its not promoting itself to us but rather to itself and we're just importing the same broadcasts doesnt matter a toss. It doesnt change our perception, no more than you explaining to a Republican or Democrat why his idealogical beliefs are wrong and yours are right would change his or her beliefs.
If America is worried about its image abroad, there is a simple solution. It has to change the way it projects its image, either through what it says, through what it does, or both. Simply telling us that we're misunderstanding things is only likely to further damage its image.
And now...I'm off for a weeks holidays. I will not be web-enabled on holidays, so I wont see any followup to this for 8 or 9 days. Just so yer all warned
jc0 -
Because marketing is a none-too-subtle part of diplomacy. I doubt even our current President is dim-witted enough to believe that a bit of diplomatic and marketing spin is enough to subvert half a century of hatred precipitated by our foreign policy. That sort of spin is something our allies are amenable to, not our enemies.My point is not that the US is alone in this, but rather that the US has a reason for doing this. Why change from the established norms and use marketing techniques and knowhow to modify the image of your nation abroad?
He has never been adroit at anything, with the possible exception of business. But most Americans are sick of adroit politicians, "Slick Willy" was the last straw for some- they prefer a bluff and bold style atm. A good school-friend of mine put it rather well. "Bush," said he, "is like the hole in a doughnut- he surrounds himself with substantial intelligence, though he himself is dumber than sh*t". Which sums up most presidencies, but especially this one.The possibility of back to war with Iraq, the resurrection of Son Of Star Wars. Ths isnt as bad as Ronnie or Dubya senior? It reads like a combination of the two at the moment. OK - when you take the extra-ordinary out, his handling of "standard" foreign policy is probably better, I grant you that. However, from outside the US, he is not making a mark as being particularly adroit at these things.
Still- I would point out that the "possibility of war" with Iraq, shouldn't count against him- it hasn't happened yet. If it does, I intend to exercise my right to protest in a number of ways. He'll never have my vote, but if he does that, I won't tolerate it lying down, and I doubt any libretarian would. I don't doubt that Iraq & the world would be a better place without Saddam- in that I'm in agreement with the current administration. But the West as a whole, us in particular, have a poor record as far as treatment of the average Iraqi citizen goes. I don't doubt that war would destroy their way of life, perhaps beyond rebuilding, which is one reason why I'm against it. Not to mention that we're committing American lives far from home for the benefit of domestic dollars per barrel of crude. As for the new Star Wars programme- I'll be greatly suprised if any President will ever commit spending to something like that. It has the potential, nay the likelihood, of becoming the greatest white elephant since the Great Wall. In some ways I hope he goes ahead with the plan, it'd likely finish him off politically.
But, you are an American. No offense, but this automatically disqualifies you from trying to argue why non-American perception of the US is wrong. In the same way that you wouldnt expect a Republican to agree with your beliefs, you shouldnt expect a non-American to agree with the American perception of America.
None taken jc- and your point is well received. I'm not your typical American, having lived abroad for many years etc- but you're right. I haven't exactly got my thumb firmly on the pulse of anti-American sentiment- mainly because it's rarely well-defined or well-balanced (at least in my experience). There's no getting away from my bias, but I do my best to present my views in as balanced a fashion as possible.
As for said views- there is still a lot about my government's policies that I have a problem with, not least the "tax cut" he's pushed. My purpose of arguing as I did was in part to demonstrate that there is method behind the madness of Kyoto and the recent ICC debacles. I call them debacles, because that's what they were in diplomatic terms. Pragmatically- there is little compelling evidence that climate change is greatly influenced by human activity- and an ICC would be a poor idea imho. Given that not a single system of justice on this planet is free of miscarriages, I find it abhorrent that a universal standard be applied via an ICC. Though as I said- I don't agree with using peace-keeping missions as a stick to get our own way(even though I'm against us contributing the bulk of UN-SFOR), at best- the manner of it looks childish.
If America is worried about its image abroad, there is a simple solution. It has to change the way it projects its image, either through what it says, through what it does, or both. Simply telling us that we're misunderstanding things is only likely to further damage its image.
No arguments there- the terrorist witch-hunt looks like getting out of hand, and I'm not terribly keen to hang around and see the consequences. The only way we're going to change perceptions is as you said- and those perceptions need changing- in those very terrorist breeding grounds for a start. Hunting them down isn't a long-term solution, only a radical shift in foreign policy will do, but even that will take time. As I said though, in the short run I'm fearful, but for the long run, I'm very hopeful indeed. That might be naive of me, but we'll see Enjoy your hol's jc, hope you look this thread up when you get back
Occy0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement