Political arguments

bonkey

ver the past few months, it is possible to look at many of the
international issues discussed here and put most of them into two major
groups.

On one hand, we have discussed the politics of economics - mostly issues such as the questionable impact the west and the trend of globalisation have had on emerging nations.

On the other, we have discussed the politics surrounding conflicts and tyrants - Iraq, Afghanistan, the Slavic nations, the Israel/Palestine conflict.

What has struck me is that there is an incredible juxtaposition of logic used when attempting to justify the actions of the western nations in the two areas.

Those who seek to justify the exploitation of emerging economies by explaining to us that the best path for these nations to follow is the same one we did - that they should not and cannot be simply molly-coddled into a modern economy. No - the workers must suffer the exploitation, the poor wages and conditions etc. just as our forbears did. Their economies will advance, we are told, slowly leading these people to a better way of life.

It is their own responsibility to get their shops in order - it is not the west who should be fighting for workers rights in poor nations led by despots, but rather the workers themselves.

Then we leave aside economic politics and discuss the despots and their rule. This is unacceptable. Here, the supporters tell us that it is unacceptable that these despots keep their people suppressed while they enrichen themselves. The people of Afghanistan needed our help to depose the Taliban, and doing so was a good thing. Deposing Saddam is likewise a good thing - not just because he is a threat to the west, but because he is a monster to his own people - starving them while he grows rich, denying them human rights, etc.

Is it just me who sees a degree of hypocracy here?

In one scenario, we insist that these people should be left to fend for themselves - they must free themselves. We will trade with them, helping their economies to grow. We will invest - not only to capitalise on the cheap labour, but because it is the best way to help the common people in these nations. Sooner or later, they will uplift themselves, and we should
not do this for them. Indeed it would be wrong to do so. We should help nurture their economies, enrichening these despots, so that eventually all will become well.


In the other scenario, we insist that these poor people cannot be left to fend for themselves - we must liberate them. We will sanction their nation's economies, crippling the nation in order to put pressure on the despts to improve things. If and when that
doesnt work, we will talk about war. This is only right and proper, because it is our job to help these people, and it would be wrong not to do so.

Should we not be more honest with ourselves?

The justification for both actions is ultimately the same. It is not what is best for these people, because the logic applied to each of the two situations is almost entirely the opposite of the other.
Instead, I would assert that our justifications are effectively attempts to avoid bluntly stating that our actions are simply what is best for us - the West does whats good for the West, and if that happens to help some others along the way...well, great, our leaders can claim some additional credit.

It suits us to trade with despots, and to let them run things pretty much their own way when they have something we want - natural resources, cheap labour...whatever. Sure, our elected leaders will make the appropriate tsk-tsk noises about the "lesser" atrocities, and will always politely encourage these people to relinquish their power in favour of democracy.

However, once those despots become a threat (or inconvenience) to us in some meaningful way...then they need to be removed. All of a sudden, their tyrrany against their own people becomes unacceptable and must be condemned.

jc

mike65

All of which can be summed up with one phase - "Real Politic"

Its the way of the world, always has been. That does'nt justify anything but...

I have to say I'm in favour of fewer despots and better conditions for all. But thats me with my "mom and apple pie" hat on!

Mike.

Sand

Apples and oranges imo.

Economic conditions do not equate to human rights, though there are arguments everyone has a human right to the internet and everyone has a human right to a TV etc etc. On economic matters Im pretty pragmatic imo - ( if you want to improve the lot of workers in the third world then force the manufacturers who sell their produce to us to be accountable by using the one thing they are completely dependant on - consumer tastes....worker firendly goods> non worker friendly goods in the eyes of most consumers - they (consumers) just need something to help them discern between them ).

Human rights are not economic - they cant be bought or sold and they are extremely valuable though I understand sometimes just having enough to eat can be better than not being abused for your political beliefs. And yes, I do believe "free" people have a obligation to support and aid any other people who are oppressed by petty tyrants.


A poor nation with a tolerable administration of justice - read a good, representitive government can grow to become a wealthy country because it will hopefully be governed for the benefit of its people. A country governed by a tyrant will always be poor because it will be governed for the benefit of the tyrant. While the average north korean eats grass, the North Korean leadership has tucked aside 4 billion in swiss bank accounts and several home from home mansions. Remove that leadership, replace it with a representitive government concerned with the well being of the north korean people and there is no reason why north korea cannot become as welathy as south korea - where people are not eating grass due to massive faminie afaik. South Korea wasnt molly coddled , it just had a tolerable administration of justice.

I dont think the first world can practice "global socialism" and redistribution - theres little incentive for it to do so in the first place - it can trade with them to help them pull themselves up , and it can topple despots to ensure they have the tolerable administration of justice they will need to bring wealth to their nation.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Apples and oranges imo.

Economic conditions do not equate to human rights,

Not quite what I'm saying.

The US will tell us that Saddam is a mad, mad bastid and that he oppresses and starves his people, and is a danger to the world at large. At the same time, they quite happily buy oil from the man...ostensibly so that he can afford to feed his people. This is ridiculous - either he is starving them or he is feeding them. Either he is using this money the way he should - and is therefore not half the monster we are told, or he is not using the money this way, in which case we should be asking why we still give it to him.

Also, there are humerous cases of human rights violations in the far-eastern sweatshops. Numerous studies have been done on the sub-human living standards afforded to the workers, as well as the horrific working conditions, the abuse (including sexual) that they receive from their employers...

Sure, it doesnt compare to dropping a ton of gas on a chunk of Kurds, but that doesnt mean that its acceptable either.

A country governed by a tyrant will always be poor because it will be governed for the benefit of the tyrant.

Exactly. But you must remember that we happily trade with many such nations who are ruled by a tyrant...happily handing over our hard-earned cash so that non-democratic rule may happily continue on our Euros and Dollars. It is only when such a nation becomes inconvenient or threatening that something must be done.

Witness...China is too large and powerful to be brought down head on. So, we play the softly-softly game and encourage a lessening of their oppression, coupled with an opening of their markets. North Korea on the other hand, is not so powerful and can be kept at arms length, with trading embargos.

Iraq is a tyranny - a non-democratic nation ruled with oppressive rules. This also applies to many other nations in the Middle East, but hey - if we took the same tough stance on all of them at the same time, we'd run out of oil....can't do that.

In many conflicts we see that the US has backed one despot over another. Sure, you can dismiss this with the "but that was a previous administration" line, but when have they ever admitted such policy was wrong. It was quite okay to help Saddam build up a massive arsenal and commit atrocities while he was useful, but once he turned his sights elsewhere - to aims and goals the west didnt approve of....only then does he become a pariah - a terrifying menace who must be removed from power one way or another.

it can trade with them to help them pull themselves up , and it can topple despots to ensure they have the tolerable administration of justice they will need to bring wealth to their nation.

And it also trades with despots when they have something useful enough that we want it, and are willing to play ball to sell it.

When we hear the US talking about Israel, we are frequently (icorrectly) reminded that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. That would mean that none of the other nations are democratic. We hear about oppression of rights...especially amongst women. We hear about the relative poverty of the common man. What is our reaction? SImple - sell the leaders whatever they want, so that we can have their oil.

Toppling despots? Funding "reasonable" systems of government? Doesnt even come close to describing the reality.

jc

Human rights are not economic - they cant be bought or sold and they are extremely valuable though I understand sometimes just having enough to eat can be better than not being abused for your political beliefs. And yes, I do believe "free" people have a obligation to support and aid any other people who are oppressed by petty tyrants.

Not strictly true, since Russia is emerging from the communist culture, as a result of its economic downfall. Its primarily because of capitalism that the russian people are getting the same basic human lifestyles that the rest of europe enjoyed up till them.

Exactly. But you must remember that we happily trade with many such nations who are ruled by a tyrant...happily handing over our hard-earned cash so that non-democratic rule may happily continue on our Euros and Dollars. It is only when such a nation becomes inconvenient or threatening that something must be done.

So Very True.

One point to consider when it comes to Saddam's enriching of himself. The money required to defend Iraq comes from Saddam. TBH, alot of the general poverty associated with Iraq is not as a result of Saddam's rule, but the allied assault a decade ago, and its economic sanctions thereafter. While i'm not excusing Saddams rule over Iraq, I do feel that not everything can be laid as his feet.

Sand

The US will tell us that Saddam is a mad, mad bastid and that he oppresses and starves his people, and is a danger to the world at large. At the same time, they quite happily buy oil from the man...ostensibly so that he can afford to feed his people. This is ridiculous - either he is starving them or he is feeding them. Either he is using this money the way he should - and is therefore not half the monster we are told, or he is not using the money this way, in which case we should be asking why we still give it to him.

Can of worms here Saddam is as you describe him - whether hes a danger to the world at large is hard to argue, he is certainly a danger to the region and he is certainly an affliction on his people. As for buying oil of him we kind of hit a contradiction - people will argue the whole Iraq war is over the US wanting to get at Iraqs oil - Saddam is happy to sell to anyone, though he has priced his oil in euros last i heard to annoy the US - but yet they can buy it freely anyway without any massive war cost so whats the deal with oil?

Does Saddam use the oil for food program for the benefit of his people? No - doesnt seem that way. Moral course would not to fund him then, something Id go for - but then you end up with another problem - Iraq is still suffering, Saddams palaces are a little less well equipped but are still there - and youve got to figure a way to help the Iraqis that doesnt involve Saddam as middle man. Direct intervention as is now being argued for perhaps, which cuts Saddam out of the picture entirely?

Id imagine people still buy oil off Saddam for a few selfish reasons - they need it and hes selling it, they can pretend to themselves that theyre helping the Iraqis and its not war so they can feel doubly good about themselves.

Kinda of going off topic here but can i pose a question to you.....

We are asked to respect the sovereignity of nations ( and/or their dictatorships ) and not engage in direct intervention, to respect international law - leaving the people themselves to sort it out, preferably with some sort of UN ( read assortment of developed/undeveloped, democratic states, not so democratic and downright oppressive states) mediation.

On the other hand were asked to fund massive aid projects, often for the same nations, and in doing so co-operate with such dictatorships - extending their rule by making life under them more palatable for the average citizen.

Why is it wrong to topple dictatorships but on the other hand its grand to give them a blank cheque to feed and clothe their people - when often the root cause of their people suffering are the dictatorships?

gurramok

Witness...China is too large and powerful to be brought down head on. So, we play the softly-softly game and encourage a lessening of their oppression, coupled with an opening of their markets. North Korea on the other hand, is not so powerful and can be kept at arms length, with trading embargos

But most significantly China has huge influence on way things are with North Korea.
In the 1950-53 Korean war, when the US forces were pushing deep into N. Korea, China sent in 300,000 men to fight the americans. The result was that the americans were pushed back as far as Seoul and later on both sides ended up as stalemate on present day borders.
Point being, the US is afraid to antagonise China too much over N. Korea and is using embargoes/diplomacy/food for stopping nuke production rather serious confontation. Though on the other hand, China likes it 'favoured trade nation status'.
Compare it to Saddam who we don't actually have concrete proof of him having 'weapons of mass destruction' despite N. Korea having plenty of them !
He does not have many powerful friends like he used to in the 80s (Russia) plus the oil factor as mentioned

shotamoose

Nobody's going to argue that "it's wrong to topple dictatorships", it's an absurd question since nobody can disagree with the goal of fewer dictatorships. It comes down to, as it always will, the means used. Means that punish the people should not be used, such as sanctions on medicine and destructive wars. Goals shift and change, but you will always have to live with the consequences of the way you go about trying to achieve them. This is why it's not automatically a good idea to 'liberate the Iraqi people' any way whatsoever, even if that includes kiling tens of thousands and plunging many more into disease and grinding poverty. And that's even assuming that they will be liberated.

But action is always going to be justified in terms of goals. So if we're going to intervene, then we must do so where possible with a minimum of self-interest. It's self-interest that leads to messed-up intervention - witness the Cold War dictatorships installed and propped up by the superpowers, then given massive loans by private and multinational banks which the people who escaped their rule are to this day required to pay back. Same goes for when we give aid to Third World countries, but only if they'll use it to buy our products, or give food aid (to get rid of our surpluses) instead of money to buy food, thus undermining local markets.

There is no contradiction between our philosophies of non-intervention and intervention because there is no philosophy of non-intervention. In terms of economics, leaving poorer countries to 'get their shops in order' does not happen - we're too busy telling them exactly what to do, more often than not for our own benefit. Letting them have real autonomy is exactly what's needed, but it requires us to both cough up funds in a very big way and recognise that if they're going to develop, we might have to relax our hold and even lose out a little.

As for political intervention and fighting dictatorship, the only way to do this and avoid distorted outcomes is through real multilateralism, unlike the pseudo-multilateralism embodied in the IMF and UN Security Council. Knowing when to let go is a tough trick, but if we don't learn it our own selfishness will always be used against us and nobody wins.

Originally posted by Sand
Does Saddam use the oil for food program for the benefit of his people? No - doesnt seem that way. Moral course would not to fund him then, something Id go for

No, it seems that Saddam does use the oil for food programme for the benefit of his people. The UN described the food distribution as 'second to none', and 16 million people are fed by it. Stopping that would punish them and probably have zero effect on him. Improving life for people in a country only prolongs the rule of the administration if it is NOT a dictatorship, while worsening their conditions only shortens the administrations lifespan in a democracy.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Why is it wrong to topple dictatorships but on the other hand its grand to give them a blank cheque to feed and clothe their people - when often the root cause of their people suffering are the dictatorships?

Maybe you didnt read what I wrote, Sand. I never said it was wrong. What I said is that the reasons we claim we are doing it for are demonstrably untrue. At best, they are side-effects which we can use for media-gain, but they are not the objectives.

We are not toppling Saddam because he's an evil dictator who oppresses his people. We just use this as an excuse so that everyone will accept the civilian casualties in any military action - they can be chalked down as a necessary evil to free the remainder of the people.

The major difference here, Sand, is that you constantly argue that the end result is more important than the reasoning. For me, however, the reasoning is what will lead to policy. I would prefer that the reasons which will shape our future be carefully considered, rather than be blindly accepted because what they achieve today is desirable in a specific case when viewed in isolation.

jc